Australia in the spotlight on climate negotiations

With climate negotiations set to heat up next year in the lead-up to an anticipated 2015 agreement, all eyes will be on Australia to see if it recovers from its recent missteps, writes John Connor.

The Warsaw UN climate summit concluded over the weekend with small steps forward when strides were needed.

The outcomes of the meeting were hard fought but important. In particular, there is a new expectation that major emitters advance new pre- and post-2020 emission reduction offers by April 2015, at the latest.

Part of the difficulty was countries realising they were in the endgame of a process scheduled for a final agreement at the end of 2015. Countries have learnt lessons from Copenhagen in 2009 and indeed Kyoto in 1997.

Copenhagen did not deliver on many expectations because the big decisions on what was a fair effort were left for too late. At Kyoto, holding back offers till the last moment was rewarded with a special "Australia clause" on land clearing. And it made us one of very few countries to be allowed a pollution increase.

This time, countries moved to avoid that situation.

The US said that ample time was needed to "expose to sunlight" offers - so that criticisms, comparisons and collective implications could be drawn well in advance. Europe called for late 2014. Others, including The Climate Institute, called for the UN secretary-general's special world leader meeting in September 2014 to be the date for initial offers.

Making things more lively were questions on performance of developed country commitments to facilitate public and private investment flows of at least $100 billion a year by 2020, as well as other substantial climate financing earlier.

At a time of challenged treasury coffers around the globe, the temptation to cut and run must have been strong. That countries didn't and submitted hundreds of millions of dollars was significant.

That these amounts remain insignificant compared to fossil fuel subsidies irked some. That they still didn't come with a clear timeline for scaling up towards the $100 billion irked many others and was part of the final standoff.

The other reason Warsaw was difficult came down to Australia appearing to backtrack on 2020 emissions reduction commitments of up to 25 per cent. Inflammatory remarks about core international climate financing principles and institutions didn't help.

Instructed by Canberra, diplomats took difficult, if not obstructive, positions in the negotiations. It was not missed by anyone that Australia sent a diplomat rather than a minister.

These actions pushed Australia to - or beyond - the margins of climate credibility and global citizenship, attracting direct or thinly veiled criticism from China to South Africa, and Pacific islands to Europe.

Japan added further fuel to the fire with its reversal on its emissions reduction pledge.

In the end, however, an agreement was struck on a roadmap to the 2015 agreement.

Decisions were also made towards a "loss and damage" mechanism to help vulnerable countries address unmanageable climate impacts. Guidelines were established to allow the Green Climate Fund to help developing nations protect rainforests.

The Government's actions during Warsaw have guaranteed that the international community will be watching our actions warily. Indeed, Australia rather spectacularly put itself in the spotlight just as numerous tests arise from early next year.

In April, countries under the Kyoto Protocol are to submit proposals of how they might lift 2020 emissions reduction targets submitted under a second commitment period. To its credit, our new Government didn't withdraw from this commitment.

But it will be interesting to see if a minister is sent to the ministerial meeting discussing those proposals in June.

In September, the Prime Minister and other world leaders have been invited to come with "bold" pre- and post-2020 pledges to a UN summit in New York.

December will have both the G20 and the next climate talks sharpening the rules for review of comparisons.

And as noted above, the end of April 2015 is the latest date countries like ours will be expected to advance 2025/2030 emission reduction contributions.

These climate negotiations aren't just a sandbox to the side of "real" trade and economic international negotiations. They are deeply enmeshed. Bad behaviour in one risks consequences in others.

It wasn't just environment ministers stalking the stadium in Warsaw. Finance, resource and economic ministers joined with senior foreign affairs officials, including the vice chairman of China's lead national economic strategy agency, Xie Zhenhua.

That most of those stayed the extra day and found a way through great difficulties is a key part of the Warsaw story.

The agreed roadmap - with current reduction and financing commitments - is not enough to ensure the collective goal of avoiding global warming of more than two degrees.

All aspects should have been stronger and it will make the collective task next year and the year after more challenging, but that will heighten the costs of poor behaviour.

John Connor is the CEO of The Climate Institute. View his full profile here.

mike:

BloodyL:

25 Nov 2013 8:07:57pm

Incorrect Mike. Simply trying to enforce existing rules does not constitute wanting to destroy the free press.All too much for the shock jocks and the Murdoch puppets of course - fancy being held to account eh?

Babsie:

26 Nov 2013 8:02:15am

Rusty it was about stopping Murdoch from committing the same here as he did in England , this article is about Climate Change anyway and Your Mr Abbott and his band of merry men bar one is about to put his tunnel vision out there yet again there is no future with the LNP just NOW and God help us, we can only hope for a vote of No Confidence

Jimmy:

26 Nov 2013 10:23:00am

Their was no "Csar" proposed , just an independent commissioner to hold the media to the standards they designed and yet breach on a daily basis . Even if that commissioner was bias , at least that bias would be to the democratically elected majority , not a commercial board room , so technically the current system has less "freedom" of representing the public "speech" .

Rusty:

26 Nov 2013 8:38:37am

all,

Even Reporters Without Borders, a left leaning organisation, listed the Rudd/Gillard/Abbott Labor government's proposed censorship of the press and the imposition of internet filters as a threat to Australian democracy.

Rusty:

26 Nov 2013 11:51:53am

Fleming,

"If Australia were to introduce systematic online content filtering, with a relatively broad definition of the content targeted, it would be joining an Internet censors club that includes such countries as China, Iran and Saudi Arabia." - in a letter from Reporters Without Borders to Kevin Rudd when he was PM on 18 December 2009.

Solartations:

OverIt:

25 Nov 2013 8:50:42pm

What veil of secrecy? Just because there is one official announcement per week doesn't mean that journalists aren't free to conduct their own investigations into timing and number of boat arrivals during that period.

Or do they no longer have such skills, and can only report what's been handed to them on a plate?

Stuffed Olive:

26 Nov 2013 9:12:53am

Too much has become secret business OverIt. Your excuse is no excuse. If Labor carried on like this dolt of an Abbott government you would be screaming communism and what happened to freedom and democracy !! Cripes, we aren't even getting pics of Abbott riding a bike or surfing anymore.

Elvis:

Tom1:

Lets face it Overit, this ploy is simply to keep from the public things they have a right to know. To state that this particular secrecy is a matter of "National Security" is codswallop.

It may be in some way defenceable if the Governments spokesmen were honest when giving us the current situation. However they twist facts, and never even mention the New Guinea agreement. Their sole aim is to try and convince the public that they have the issue under control, and politics is uppermost.

tomtoot:

25 Nov 2013 7:03:10pm

Don't think so Billy Bob Hall - bit of wishful thinking there?

Maybe enroute to demolishing the heath system, the Gonski school reforms, the NDIS, retiring age, and relations with our neighbours and the UN etc., - and all within a few weeks of office - mind blowing how thoughtless stupidity can be so destructive. - Only Rusty could surpass such a comment?

D-N-H-F:

brandy:

25 Nov 2013 8:25:41pm

Global warming! I only wish, its absolutely freezing where I am, where do these people take their readings from in the middle of the Simpson desert, and no I'm not in Tasmania, think it would be warmer.

rusty cairns:

25 Nov 2013 9:00:49pm

Whoa, freezing ha? If your in the southern hemisphere it's a week away from summer, You should be feeling warmer, unless the climate is experiencing server change ?Haven't a whole lot of scientists warned to expect sever weather conditions?I've heard a lot about Australians in Australia experiencing tornado's lately, can't remember hearing about this many tornado's in one year before, can you?

PB:

26 Nov 2013 11:37:56am

Actually no, not really.Climate is simply the 30 year average of... weather. Climate cycles are recorded in 30 year blocks, why? Just because thats how it's always been. Anyway, not too concerned with global warming, the observations clearly show that temperature fluctuations are well within the observed natural variation over the last several thousand years. Whatever effect human emissions are having on global avergae temperature it falls below natural variations. You can argue all you want but these are the facts. There is absolutely no empirical evidence that definitively links human emissions to increased global average temperature. Want to reduce emissions to curb pollutants that are dangerous to human health? Sure, no worries, but best you be prepared to back nuclear power in Australia, 'cos the simple fact is that solar and wind on there own will not cut it. Waiting for the 'warmists' to have a cry now...

Brodie:

25 Nov 2013 9:52:14pm

You just don't get it?Global warming does not mean it gets hotter everywhere?it changes the patterns of long term weather. Some places will be hotter and drier, others wetter, some places more snow than they should have. It is a change in patterns we have been used to.The best indication of human induced climate change is the acidification of the oceans?check it out.

Bean Counter:

26 Nov 2013 8:10:38am

Brodie (9.52am) You have been mislead.

Climate is an average of weather event measurements. This means that as each new measurement is taken, and added to the previous ones, then averaged, THAT AVERAGE (climate) may change. I hope you see that this means that the weather CHANGES THE CLIMATE and it is not the other way around.

Where the con has occured is that "climate" is a purely human invention, but has been relentlessly presented a real existing objective entity.

So, where the (deliberate) mistake is constantly made is that, let's say the past thirty Decembers in .say, Sydney have had an average of 20 Degrees Min and 25 degrees Max temps overall each day, we CANNOT say that this December will be above, below or exactly the same as the average. If it is above then the average (the CLIMATE) will be changed, and be warmer, but if it's below then the average (the CLIMATE) will be cooler too.

In effect YOUR assertion that Climate CAUSES weather has it arse-around. Like asserting that "because Mitchell Johnson's bowling average has improved, he will bowl better" when in fact it's "because Mitchell Johnson has been bowling better, his average has improved". Do you understand?

Demosthenes:

26 Nov 2013 8:36:20am

I think you are completely misunderstanding the difference between climate and weather. Climate is a measure of the underlying drivers, which in a statistical way influence the weather. The weather of today does not make the climate - it manifests it.

On average, the climate is warmer in Brisbane than Sydney. Do you seriously question that statement? Hence, you can measure and calculate climate.

Open your eyes to reality. The ocean is a degree warmer than it was 50 years ago. The sea ice in the north polar regions is decreasing year by year. 9000 out of 10000 glaciers being monitored are shrinking. Oh, and solar activity is the weakest it has been in 400 years. Is this all imaginary?

PB:

Alpo:

26 Nov 2013 9:02:37am

"Where the con has occurred is that "climate" is a purely human invention"... TOTALLY FALSE! Patterns of weather events change more or less consistently across different regions of the globe, thus defining regions with different CLIMATES. This is no fiction, just live in various climatic regions and you will realise, no need to be a professional climatologist.

Then measurements of weather patterns also change over time, some times following cycles with different periods (cycles within cycles) that result from causative factors both internal to Earth and external.

Causation of weather patterns are linked to causation of climatic differences, but they are not exactly the same.

Bean Counter:

26 Nov 2013 8:19:05am

Slatts (12.10am).

First step is for YOU to accept that even the IPCC admits that there is an unexplained pause in Global Warming; the overall average.

Once you accept this to be the case, then you can mock Brandy as silly to talk about Local Cold Weather (though any normal person would see he was being facetious) , but so too should you mock the nutters raving about Blue Mountains bushfires, and Philippines Typhoons being GLOBAL manifestations.

The simple questions to answer; Since the GLOBAL average temperature was 14.5 Degrees in 2012, is this "hot". Would an increase to 16.5 Degrees be HOT?

Next. If the reply is "It depends where you are, and what the effects are, where you are" then maybe you will STOP with this "It's not about local weather" crap.

Mycal:

26 Nov 2013 10:04:47am

Beans, in your earlier post you demonstrated a misunderstanding of the relationship between weather and climate, in this post you misquote the IPCC "the IPCC admits that there is an unexplained pause in Global Warming"

What the IPCC says is that "the rise in average global surface temperatures is not statistically significant". Points to note are:a) there has been an increase,b) it is only one class of data, there are others that suggest warming is continuingc) averages do not account for extremes?

Finally I'm all for mocking, but you're an easier target than Brandy, best you stick to bean counting.

PB:

26 Nov 2013 11:44:31am

Slatts,Wrong. There is no such thing as a 'global climate'. Climate is localised depending on geographic locality and is influenced by the amount of solar radiation received, the humidity, cloud cover, proximity to the ocean, mountains... the list of variables is endless. These combine to produce a localised climate pattern based on that region, which may or may not be influenced by ajoining regions, by ocean currents and wind patterns etc. You cannot simply average these out to produce a 'global climate' - no such thing. Global average temperature is also of questionable value...

mikey:

Bean Counter:

mikey (1.20am). Climate is a fiction. It is a mathematical concept only known to humans. Weather is OBJECTIVE REALITY.

Let's say that someplace it's known to be hot and humid in summer. "Known" because WE know. How would YOU determine that it was "changing"? How would anyone? Well....

Over past years, months, days we would take measurements of the temperatures, and the humidity, and make an average by adding several temperature readings, and several humidity readings then dividing the totals by the number of readings. OK...so the averages for Place X over the past thirty years in February are 24 Degrees Min, 32 Degrees Max...Humidity 89%.

So what will it be in Feb 2014? If you reply that we won;t know until 1st March 2014, you are correct, but we could take a guess and say "warmer...or more humid, or both....or a little cooler...or a little less humid...or maybe both.....or a combination of these", which means that until we see the actual WEATHER, we won't know what THE CLIMATE is doing!

We could also ask the same questions for the Feb 2024, and likewise we'll have to await the weather.

And THAT is where the whole scam falls over. The scamsters have DELIBERATELY confused the issues....in the same way that financial fraudsters confuse issues to mislead. However, unlike the AGW/ACC conmen there is no legal obligation to put the fine print at the bottom of their pronouncements "Past results are no indication of future results",

Mycal:

bobtonnor:

26 Nov 2013 10:38:06am

i dont think i have ever read such a ridiculous cop out argument, do you have super? yeah im sure you do, are you going to draw it all out today because you cant be sure what will happen tomorrow, no i doubt, when you retire you are going to expect to have a particular amount, why? because based on past performance we are able to forecast what will happen, are we going to be spot on, doubtful but without a crystal ball that is all you have. The last decade was warmer than the one before it, and that one was warmer than the one before that, where exactly do you see the problem with any type of forecasting?

Taswegian:

26 Nov 2013 6:03:30am

Yep, Tas (like the rest of oz) has had an abnormally hot winter. In fact this year is shaping up to be the hottest on record for land temperatures, meanwhile we have tropical fish turning up in our cold water fisheries.This means the loss of cold water fish, the loss of key breeding grounds and the loss of economies around here.on land, we've had an abnormal spring and most farmers aren't getting the growth they'd expect (high rain, another symptom of warmer oceans) and anyone inf the NE of the state has had most of their crops washed away or waterlogged.There are abnormal weather patterns, which see systems that used to pass along the E coast just sitting off shore, dumping huge amounts of rain.

By the way, climate change is about trend change. Readings from the Simpson desert are just as useful as readings from anywhere else, especially as they all see the inexorable rise of temperatures, decade on decade.

harvey:

oh dear, one day you'll understand the meaning of 'average' temperature.

The changes in 'average temperature' are pretty small year on year, and we don't notice them because of the natural variability of the temperature.

But the 'average temperature ' is inexorably going up at the moment. We're getting 'warmest spring', 'warmest summer' 'warmest day' readings often now. And it shows no sign of happening. We get an unseasonal big blob of warmer water off the coast of NSW, and the temperatures soar in early spring. As they did this year.

dman:

26 Nov 2013 9:48:15am

I don't think it's much better else where either. But there's nothing wrong with wanting to be better, don't you think? We should be able to talk about being a better australia without talk of renouncing citizenship

Mycal:

bobtonnor:

Robert:

25 Nov 2013 6:38:35pm

That conference is a load of nonsense. Thank God for Tony Abbott. The tooth fairy has more credibility than the UN.Folks listen to me, all this climate change nonsense is political and nothing to do with science.

BloodyL:

25 Nov 2013 8:23:16pm

Much better the flat earther's view of AGW eh Rusty?You seem to be suggesting only unpaid scientists are worth listening to, or perhaps your Lord Monkton types have some profound insight into the science which is superior the the professional scientific view.Then again, I suppose whatever Bolt or Jones says must be correct. No thinking required.

Dr Who:

26 Nov 2013 10:25:44am

Really JohM? Greenpeace and renewable energy companies such as Vestas spend 3000 times as much on climate research as Exxon-Mobil and other fossil fuel companies combined? I don't suppose you have evidence of your claim do you?

oops:

JohnM:

No. You obviously don't know how much funding fossil fuel gives to Greenpeace, WWF and others.

On the basis of your argument all scientists can be "bought" so the logical extension of that is that the side with the greatest amount of funding is the most corrupt.

It might sound extreme but unfortunately it's true. The alarmists receive funding about 3000 times greater than the sceptics, so don't you think that scientists who want research funding (and personal income) will go the way the money is.

GrumpyOldMan:

Rusty says ... "Scientists can no longer be considered independent when they are being paid to provide opinions - research data falsification and fraud seems to be common in the AGW space."

They are being paid to discover facts about the global climate system and to put those facts into a global economic/environmental context. Perhaps you expect scientists to do this voluntarily, or to run chook raffles to fund the building, launching and operation of satellites.

The fact that the vast majority of climate scientists are of the 'opinion' that you are talking through your hat, or the orifice between your buttocks, would much more convincing than your libelous rantings.

JohnM:

26 Nov 2013 8:42:01am

The fact that you think that scientific truth is determined by how many scientists endorse an idea shows that it's you who is talking through their hat.

PS. What makes you think that the 'vast majority of climate scientists' hold a certain opinion? The much quoted survey by Cook was a travesty. A recent survey among US meteorologists resulted in 46% saying that human activity had negligible influence.

blerter:

Dr Paul:

JohnM, there is no Scientific truth, only Scientific evidence, drawn from observation, making hypotheses, observing more evidence, making models, testing models, making more observations...

What you call "Scientific Truth" is the evidence collated from decades of observation and gathering of model calculations tested against the observations and then making statements on what changes have occurred.

If you and your IPA and Murdoch Press backed people would care to go through the thousands of peer reviewed articles and then all of the observations and find the errors and how the atmosphere is not changing due to the input of IR absorbers caused by Human Influence, then you would be awarded any level of Science award.

Until you have the Scientific knowledge to do so, you should read , yes read, oh that is a dirty word, the reports and consider the outcomes and recommendations supported by the evidence of observation.

This is not Scientific Truth, Scientists do not look for truth, they look to explain the things they observe. The Scientists are worried by the changes occurring in the atmosphere due to Human Influence. If you want to ignore that, go ahead. It is not, however, prudent to ignore warnings based on such mountains of observational evidence.

Mycal:

26 Nov 2013 10:14:03am

John the best possible outcome from all these truck loads of money funding climate research is that they prove you right. This being the case, why aren't you in favour of it. I mean you KNOW you are right so there can't possibly be any other outcome can there?

ThatFlemingGent:

25 Nov 2013 9:58:23pm

"Scientists with a vested interest in pushing the AGW barrow as recipients of governmental or green industry funding certainly believe it is true."

Ah the conspiratorial nonsense of a denier. All noise and no proof - given the massive percentage you claim it's all some great gravy train (do you have a concept of how much scientists and academics make? Hint: It's nothing compared to the polluting industry barons and neocons that smear them)

Is there anyone more mindless and stupid than a vehement climate change denier?

JohnM:

don't believe the media:

26 Nov 2013 6:27:43am

Rusty, by applying the same viewpoint to both sides of the global warming debate i think you'll destroy your own argument. If you claim scientists agenda is personal wealth above their calling and the fossil fuel corporations agenda is truth and facts then you surely are quite delusional.

Greig:

25 Nov 2013 8:49:35pm

"Scientists disagree".

It is so sad to see this "consensus among scientists" nonsense constantly trotted out as if it has meaning. The scientists you refer to would cringe at what you are doing. Science stands on evidence and nothing else.

And the evidence, as stated by the latest IPCC AR5 and SREX reports cannot find evidence to connect climate change to droughts, floods, storms, etc. Look it up.

Why is it that climate change advocates like Glamorpig and BloodL cannot see that there is a difference between knowing that GHGs cause atmospheric warming (a scientific fact), and the alarmist view that we need to spend $trillions on trying to avoid some imagined catastrophe (a politically motivated fantasy).

don't believe the media:

26 Nov 2013 6:31:34am

Dizzying intellect Greig. If you don't understand the basics of weather it's best not to criticise those who study it. By the way, done properly we don't have to spend trillions, we save trillions. Not to mention all living things.

Greig:

26 Nov 2013 7:39:01am

a) Your perception of my knowledge about weather is irrelevantb) I am not criticising climate scientistsc) If you have a plan to lower CO2 emissions and save $trillions, then reveal itd) "all living things" are not under any threat from human emissions of CO2.

Ray Manta:

Greig:

26 Nov 2013 11:27:48am

Ignoring the fact that China and India are building 4 coal plants a week and will use them for the next 50-80 years whether we like it or not, keeping coal in the ground takes away the ability for developing countries to generate cheap energy, which retards their emergence from poverty. This results in more human misery and continued overpopulation (with related environmental costs).

PB:

26 Nov 2013 12:08:17pm

@DBTM, Dizzing reply mate, truth hurts hey? Best not talk about weather mate, we are talking long term climate changes here. I would love to know how you plan to save trillions? Please share! If it doesn't involve nuclear power you are dreaming. Funnily enough energy supply costs bulk dollars and wind and solar are the most expensive with the lowest energy density. Oh and BTW Carbon Dioxide is not toxic and will not harm living things, if it did, we would all be dead - fact.

Dr Who:

26 Nov 2013 4:24:07pm

Put two and two together Greig. It's really not that hard, even for you. There is evidence that anthropogenic greenhouse gases will change induce global warming, and evidence that climate change (either global warming or cooling) causes extinctions.

GrumpyOldMan:

If you understood how real scientists work you would perhaps understand why the IPCC made the statements it did, and why your statement is highly misleading.

Do you understand that the measurement of the 'strength' of weather events has just 5 levels, from Category 1 to 5. Furthermore there are only a limited number of weather events that are classified in this way each year. This differs vastly from the quality and quantity of air and sea temperature data. And this means that drawing linkages between CO2 and temperature is far easier to make with certainty than drawing linkages between CO2 and the strength and/or frequency of weather events.

So it is highly misleading to conclude that ... "IPCC AR5 and SREX reports cannot find evidence to connect climate change to droughts, floods, storms". There is just not enough high quality quantitative data, (as opposed to low quality subjective data), available to make that connection with the level of certainty required by real scientists who put their reputations on the line with every word they write and publish.

But, apart from that, the Laws of Physics suggest strongly that that link should exist. If you disagree with that, then please feel free to explain to us all why heating the atmosphere and oceans will not result in more frequent and more severe weather events.

Greig:

26 Nov 2013 2:53:47pm

Grumpy, it is encouraging that you have actually acknowledged now what the IPCC is actually reporting. However it is grossly unscientific to make your assumptions about what should happen, and assume it is true and that we simply do not yet have enough "high quality quantitative data". Science is based on evidence, and until there is an observation to match the hypothesis then you are only speculating.

And since you ask, there is indeed an hypothesis to explain why heating does not necessarily correlate with increased storm activity. Basically with GHG driven warming, the poles heat at a greater rate to the equator. This reduces the horizontal temperature gradient which in turn reduces the pressure gradients and jet stream velocity. This causes the jet stream s to meander, resulting in occasionally colder air moving toward the equator, and warmer air moving to the poles, and so resulting in steadying of climate variability and weather intensity.

Mycal:

26 Nov 2013 10:19:51am

You're right James, 97% was always suspiciously high, bit like a democratic election in a third world dictatorship. Anyway it doesn't really matter does it, those who think climate science is "probably right" vastly out number those who just "know it's wrong".

The Truth:

26 Nov 2013 10:29:29am

Where is this evidence to support your views, where's the evidence to suggest that the IPCC report is false, and that a majority of scientists reject climate change as being a very serious threat to our world.

It seems the sceptics have no evidence to call upon and fundamentally have no idea how science works. It relies on a hypothesis , then gathering evidence to support observations.But then again the same bunch believed the earth to be flat, everything orbitted around the earth, believed energy to radiatted continously as a wave, these people despite being clearly wrong would spend centuries killing and burning people who saw the truth. Not much has changed has it

PB:

26 Nov 2013 11:57:34am

Glam,There are plenty of scientists who disagree also. If there is consensus then there is no science. The DAGW hypothesis has so far failed when confronted with evidence to the contrary. You can cry but xx% of scientists agree... that doesn't make it true and it certainly doesn't make it science. The sheer fact that thousands of scientists disagree with the theory should raise alarm bells, and so far there is no hard evidence to support the theory, even the latest IPCC report has increased the level of uncertainty in the face of observed facts. I'm not saying human emissions are good, for health reasons alone they are not, but you need to start asking some serious questions about the scientific 'consensus'

JRM:

Robert:

25 Nov 2013 7:47:48pm

I think I know why. It's a wedge by that I mean its purpose is to divide one generation from another and you'll find gay marriage is also part of this as is feminism. It's really quite clever and totally evil. These altogether are designed to wedge people and so create division that previously didn't exist.To defeat them just reject what they say and assert.Of course the objective is to gain power for the lefties that's why Labor and the Greens are right into it. Folks have no doubt,the Labor party are your enemy more so if you're a working person.

Glamorpig:

25 Nov 2013 8:05:22pm

If I understand you, you are asserting that the only purpose of gay marriage is to "divide one generation from another". That is as delusional a claim as I have ever encountered. Which generations do you mean? "To defeat them just reject what they say and assert." You mean you can assert to gay people that you know better than they do who they should marry?

Taswegian:

25 Nov 2013 8:57:43pm

You;re not half into conspiracy theories, are you?According to you, gay marriage isn't about equality and dignity, it's a concerted effort to undermine the fabric of our society. in one sense you're correct - it seeks to do away with the unfair power balances that have evolved to favour the white christian male - but that can only be a positive thing for the majority of society, who aren't white christian males.

If you see science only as a political tool, then you're missing not only the pressing evidence on climate change, but also all the awe and wonder of disruptive innovation and progress.

don't believe the media:

26 Nov 2013 6:36:40am

More startling intelligence. Stopping discrimination against gays and lesbians is divisive? Recognising equality in the sexes is divisive? Trying to halt the destruction of the planet is divisive and they are all' totally evil and clever'????It does separate the sexist, homophobic, flat earthers from the people who can think beyond eat, sleep and destroy i suppose.

Demosthenes:

Just because you don't like objective reality, it doesn't mean that it will bend its will to suit you. Dozes of failed civilisations have taken that path, and it never ends well.

Concatenating climate change, feminism socialism and gay marriage as some vast conspiracy really only leads to two conclusions.

1.There is a vast hidden global conspiracy to do ( something). No, as a species, we are just not that organised.

2. All these ideas (to change the apparently conservative 50s utopia that you think exists or should exist) are related. I am sorry to tell you that there are a whole host of right wing politicians in favour of same sex marriage, and ( shock) some of them are also women. On the other hand, the North Koreans seem very aligned to your world view.

Theos:

25 Nov 2013 7:09:43pm

Attention humanity. A random poster on an internet forum has declared that the scientific consensus regarding the anthropogenic climate change has "nothing to do with science". I therefore command that all peer reviewed scientific journals are collected into large piles and burned. Further, I command that all professional scientists stop working on science, and immediately focus their efforts on studying the far more credible "tooth fairy" theory of everything.

Greig:

Theos:

26 Nov 2013 9:12:12am

I'm going to go out on a limb here and hypothesize that you have never studied science, or the English language it seems. The word "consensus" means "a general agreement about something". In science, as in essentially all fields of study, there are consensuses about views. In mathematics, there is a consensus that 1 + 1 = 2. In biology, there is a consensus that all life on earth has a common ancestor. In chemistry, there is a consensus that Hydrogen atoms have one proton. In history, there is a consensus that WW2 actually occurred. Your assertion that "consensus has nothing to do with science" is simply wrong and demonstrates a poor grasp of the English language.

A scientific view reaches consensus when almost all (or all) experts in that particular field of study are of the opinion that the evidence supporting that view is sufficiently strong to provisionally hold that view as true. Your post seems to imply that some scientific pope asserts a view, defines it as truth and the scientific community all just accept the pronouncement as canon. That is how religion (and sadly much of politics) works, but it is the exact opposite of how science works. Scientists are among the most honest and most independent thinkers on the planet. They make up their minds based on the available evidence. When a group of independent thinking experts all (or nearly all) reach a similar conclusion, a rational person concludes that that conclusion is more likely true than is some other view.

Greig:

26 Nov 2013 11:42:41am

Well Theos, I have studied both science and english at a tertiary level, I am a qualified engineer, and I stand by my statement that consensus has nothing to do with science - it is a political notion.

It doesn't matter whether everyone agrees on the truth of a matter, it does not make it any more true. Truth is not determined by scientific pope, it is based on the interpretation of a body of evidence. The fact that biologists agree on evolution is based on observation of the fossil record (evidence) - not on consensus. It is possible for nearly all experts to agree, and still be completely wrong. (e.g the cause of stomach ulcers is H. pylori bacteria, rather than previous belief it was caused by stress).

In climate science, the body of evidence leads to the conclusion that it is very likely that CO2 is causing warming. But there is little evidence to conclude on future warming or negative environmental impacts. To declare that there is a meaningful consensus of scientists on this matter is therefore absurd.

PB:

26 Nov 2013 12:15:41pm

@Theos- Attention - go and study science mate - consensus does not a hypothesis make. Thousands of scientists actually disagree with the DAGW theory and no evidence exists to prove the theory. Ask some questions mate and do a bit of wider reading, and that means both sides of the argument!

Kazza:

25 Nov 2013 7:10:16pm

Dear Robert

Do you have your flu vaccination, have your children immunized or go to the doctors when you are sick? If the answer is yes then you trust medical science with your body and health. Then why disbelieve climate scientist!!!!!!! Our real problem is that Australia is going to be impacted in so many different ways and much worse (unless you live on a small island that is fast disappearing)

Really:

25 Nov 2013 9:14:21pm

That's funny! After my child suffered two severe reactions, after two separate immunisations, we were sent to the head of immunology in our state. He stated that realistically we give all these immunisations, and fingers crossed all will be ok. When it's not, that's just bad luck. I trust health professionals as much as I trust climate scientists. You do realise that a warmer climate is better for all on earth. More people die in the cold than heat. But don't let facts spoil your great story! Best t-shirt ever - "I'm more worried about the intellectual climate".

Wrendan Blot:

26 Nov 2013 7:12:01am

Problem for you really is that 99.9% have no problems with vaccinations that save thousands of lives every year. You sadly fell into the 0.1%. So extrapolating your theory, no one should be vaccinated because it went wrong for you. Hmm.

Really:

26 Nov 2013 7:57:44am

You assume I am against immunisations, once again you are blinded by your ignorance. Maybe you should do some homework on both subjects and get informed. The planet has cooled, guess what sherlock it's called adaption. Humans are great at it. Less chicken little and more informed debate please!

Bean Counter:

26 Nov 2013 10:55:48am

The vaccination analogy is not bad.

While we all understand that every medicine can have side effects, and that sometimes they can be severe (see the little leaflet in every pack), it's generally understood that if the huge majority of users do not have side effects, that the drug in question is "proven" to work.

Meanwhile the vast majority of ACC modelled-predictions have been shown to NOT WORK. The vast majority of uttered predictions have been WRONG., and proven to be faulty.

If the ACC Hypothesis was a medication it would not have been released to the public. And as it's only Socialism Addicts who DOswear by it, then it just goes to show that self-harm really IS a Lefty thing eh?

Dr Who:

26 Nov 2013 4:33:49pm

You're right bean counter, the vaccination analogy is not bad.

The efficacy of vaccines in vivo is often being revised. Mutant viral strains, other factors that might affect disease transmission (eg. an understanding of how diseases are transmitted and how best to mitigate them, population densities etc.) are often not fixed in stone. Old vaccines are sometimes less effective against new viral strains (a classic case where the efficacy varies considerably is the TB vaccine), so vaccine efficacy models are not absolutes. You could say many of them have "been WRONG., and proven to be faulty." Like climate models.

But with a few exceptions (such as those with allergies or compromised immune systems and might suffer adverse reactions to certain vaccines), anyone who questions the wisdom of vaccinations is an idiot. Ditto for anyone who questions whether or not AGW is real, or going to be a problem if not mitigated.

PB:

26 Nov 2013 12:23:30pm

State your source for the '2m under water' reference. I want to see empirical evidence to support that claim. Otherwise stop talking smak. Current best predictions from the IPCC have be downgraded dramatically and the worst case rise is 3mm per year or maybe 30 cm by the end of the century.

Mycal:

26 Nov 2013 10:30:22am

Your experience with immunisation is rare, you can take solace from the fact that your children are one in a hundred thousand and will be protected from "herd immunity", just don't visit to many third world countries. I am fully immunised, so is every member of my family down to the great grand children. I still get flu shots, tetanus shots and pneumonia shots. Occasionally I get head aches and fevers, but I trust medical science, it has kept me alive for over 60 years.

As for a warmer world being better, you may be right, the dinosaurs loved it. You aren't a dinosaur are you?

Alpo:

25 Nov 2013 7:32:46pm

So Greig, the voters prefer to spend millions planting trees and then more millions to compensate CO2 emitters? Is that what they voted for?.... Care to check? If you find that they disagree with that, then your whole hypothesis crumbles.

reaver:

25 Nov 2013 8:06:48pm

They voted for it, Alpo. If they didn't know they were voting for it and don't like that they voted for it then they should have been more diligent when deciding who to vote for. You don't get to take your vote back if you have buyer's remorse.

Mycal:

25 Nov 2013 9:50:28pm

I find this "they voted for it" argument specious reaver. People vote for a lot of reasons and it doesn't mean they fully support each and every policy espoused by the party of choice. It is entirely possible that a particular policy can be overwhelmingly opposed but the party sponsoring can still be elected. The "theory of political mandates" is exactly that, a theory. There is also the possibility (remote in the case of the Libs) that, on being elected, they should do what is in the national interest irrespective of electoral policy. Finally they are supposed to be governing for "all Australians".

None of this means they should not implement the policies they took to the election, but they should do so judiciously and with consideration (the latter is particularly important for the Coalition because their electoral policies were pretty much three word slogans anyway).

And let's face, most people didn't vote for TA and the Libs, they voted against Labor!

reaver:

26 Nov 2013 10:06:52am

Mycal, before an election each party or candidate presents the electorate with a suite of policies and asks the electorate to vote for them. If someone votes for that party or candidate they are voting for ALL of the policies in that suite. The voters don't get to choose some of the policies and not others. No doubt "do(ing) what is in the national interest irrespective of electoral policy" is what the Gillard government thought they were doing when they brought in the carbon tax. We all saw how well that turned out for her and them.There were more than 1,000 candidates on the ballots for the House. Only 150 of them were from the 4 coalition parties, yet over 50% of voters put either a 1 or a 2 next to a coalition candidate. If the voters were only voting against Labor then there was plenty of opportunity to do so while not voting for the coalition. I had anticipated this alternate outcome, with an increase in the number of independent and minor party MPs. Instead the number of independent and minor party MPs remains the same at 5. The voters decided to vote for the coalition rather than just against Labor.

mr shark (not a lawyer):

25 Nov 2013 11:57:30pm

I think they voted against a Labor government because they were so divided, not for a direct action plan whihc si still nebulous and illformed , even after three years of having the time to fully develop the plan. The latest poll shows that the vast majority think direct action is a crappy policy . Lets face it , was there much coverage of direct action by the media during the election?. No! the coalition has fudged this issue and were so busy criticising the carbon policy that totally neglected their own plans, because most of them are scientific luddites who don't want any positive changes anyway.

Greig:

Mine is not an hypothesis, it s a statement about how democracy works. e.g. If the voters don't like what Abbott does with Direct Action, they will vote him out again.

My opinion on DA are:

Planting trees is a good idea, regardless of CO2 emissions. So what's the problem?

Compensating CO2 emitters is not part of DA policy, what you mean to say is that the policy provides funding to industry to deploy new technology which reduces emissions. (If you don't understand the policy please don't comment)

Alpo:

26 Nov 2013 7:48:59am

Greig, it is a compensation for the expenditures incurred in changing the way they fuel their productive activities. A scheme easily open to scams. If you don't understand the reality of the policy of your own side, please refrain from embarrassing yourself. Planting trees is not a major or a speedy solution to this problem.

Greig:

26 Nov 2013 8:11:24am

"it is a compensation for the expenditures incurred in changing the way they fuel their productive activities"

Precisely. The policy requires that industry compete for grants to use new technology to reduce emissions. If you think this process is open to scams, I would be interested in how you think such a scam might work.

Ray Manta:

Gryffon:

25 Nov 2013 10:33:42pm

Too right! I'm waiting for the State Governments to get with Tony's New Vision and start offering to pay me not to speed in my car. This outdated nonsense of fining people who exceed some arbitrary limit is just reprehensible.

Pay me to behave and I'll probably do so.

Possibly.

Maybe.

Perhaps.

But at least then I will know that government money is where it will do the most good!

Greig:

26 Nov 2013 12:49:47pm

Lisa,

Please read the quote again. I did not say "AGW is nonsense". I said "climate change ALARMISM is nonsense". Because such a view is not supported by science.

I do not question "the mechanism of the greenhouse effect", but "its consequences" remains the subject of hot scientific debate, and while AGW is near universally accepted, there is certainly no agreement that we necessarily face dire outcomes in the future.

And Lisa, I have tertiary level science qualifications, and have been studying the engineering aspect of the climate change debate for 30 years. I feel more than qualified to make comment on this subject.

PB:

26 Nov 2013 1:51:46pm

Lisa, You clearly don't understand the relationship between carbon dioxide and the 'greenhouse effect'. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas when compared to water vapour. The consequence of the greenhouse effect is that there is life on this planet. It is a very complicated system with many feedbacks, one that scientists are still trying to fully understand. You are quick to critisise but have no evidence to back up your argument.

PB:

26 Nov 2013 1:54:13pm

Couldn't agree more. Most people can only spruik what they hear in the media, which is most often incorrect. Only by reading widely are both sides of the DAGW case revealed and only then can you decide, based on weight of evidence.

Mr Zeitgeist:

25 Nov 2013 7:43:16pm

@Grieg:Except when you observe the random polls taken over the past six years where 70% people 'want action on climate change'.

Democracy Grieg, is not just a prescriptive once-in-four-years election; it happens all the time. It happens whenever people want it. (What, you think Rupert Murdoch waits four years before getting on the phone to demand relaxing media ownership laws?)

Finally, it is incumbent upon YOU to bring contrary evidence to the climate debate but as usual; just couldn't be bothered....

Greig:

25 Nov 2013 9:00:38pm

Mr Z,

I don't need to bring contrary evidence. I base my views on the subject entirely upon the body of peer-reviewed scientific knowledge on climate change. ... which does not agree with the alarmist view of climate action advocates.

don't believe the media:

26 Nov 2013 6:41:45am

An interesting point. You could be a politician. I'm interested to hear about this 'body of evidence' and the names and affiliations of the scientists who do not agree with the need for action on climate.

Greig:

26 Nov 2013 7:54:15am

The body of evidence on climate science shows that it is very likely humans have caused warming, but it does not provide any conclusive evidence that this is bad, or that the future looks dire. Opinion on whether we should take action on climate is not only a scientific matter - it is a political position based also on engineering, technology and economics. Calling for "the names and affiliations of the scientists who do not agree with the need for action on climate" is yet another attempt at argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority) which is a logical fallacy.

Pegaso:

Ozziefried:

26 Nov 2013 6:26:48am

Well there we have it. Abbott-and-mottley-crew + bubbles Bishop(Julie)+ emeritus gnome Howard, have ignored science and insulted the Indonesian president. All within a few weeks. Problem is that the aforementioned don't have too many neurons, so things will only get worse. But.... let's look on the bright side, it's sooo amusing watching/listening to the inarticulate utterings (Abbott is not able to speak fluently), of Abbott-and-mottley-crew. Perhaps their shock-jock pals should write their dot point press releases? Oh I forgot, they don't give press conferences, or give out info. (probably because of the articulation problem).

Rusty:

25 Nov 2013 2:44:19pm

Like Labor/Green voters, the so-called climate disadvantaged countries just love free Australian taxpayer funded slush funds - to be stolen or wasted by scammers and spivs in the Green Industry. They bleat because the gravy train is over and they nay have to work for a living instead of sucking off the public purse teat.

The European ETS market has already failed with many countries leaving the market.

toot:

25 Nov 2013 6:14:18pm

Rusty and all the following climate deniers, the level of ignorance and arrogance displayed by you all is breathtaking. Out come the booming ostrich brigade in their numbers. The BOB are those who lie flat on the ground making like a rock. However, if threatened (in this case with reality) they leap up, kick out and try to disembowel their opposition. They believe if they keep repeating that climate change is all a green/leftist conspiracy, we'll all believe them. Sadly for them, the evidence is overwhelming that humans are speeding up the process exponentially. Facts don't deter them in the least because they believe the earth is flat.

'The year so far in Australia has been the warmest on record by a fairly substantial margin,' he said.

'Up to the end of October we were running 0.24 of a degree ahead of the previous record year, which means that unless November and December are significantly cooler, 2013 will be Australia's warmest year on record.'

'The globe is getting warmer and inexorably our agricultural systems are going to have to adapt to higher temperatures and, in some cases, less rainfall.'

'Farmers need to be aware of how the climate is changing. They need to think about how they adapt as they go forward.'

He says the evidence suggests the climate will not return to temperatures experienced 30 years ago."

Clearly carbon markets are just a scam. It's the only logical explanation for the concerted international effort to push beyond the regressive obfuscationists like our present government and reduce carbon.

Peter:

26 Nov 2013 5:28:42am

Well sunshine where is the analysis of the "success" of the EU ETS that it was suggested Australia should tie up with and the effect that this will have on thermal electricity production in Australia. Last I saw there is NO plan to shut down these plants. Of course there is not as we would need something else to replace this capacity and there is no economically viable plan to do this. Gas conversion would assist but as far as I know there are no plans on the table to do this. Sadly too many people accept the spin that a tax will reduce emissions somehow.

Forrest Gardener:

Pericles:

Mycal:

25 Nov 2013 9:58:22pm

Rusty you maintain that anti ETS line in the face of evidence that demonstrates they can workYou maintain that the carbon schemes haven't worked (true) but you don't acknowledge either why that is, the reasons for it or how they can (and probably will) be fixed. You simply keep asserting that they are failures.

So tell me honestly, what is the point in debating this issue with you?

Rusty:

26 Nov 2013 8:47:46am

Mycal,

Actually I have stated many, many times why the Carbon ETS markets won't work - unless EVERY country is completely (ie ALL its industry without exception) in the market then market forces cannot lead to change.

It will never happen - there are already exceptions even in those countries using an ETS. For example in China any country that is an exporter (pretty much everyone) is EXEMPT from needing carbon emission permits. In South Korea, certain industry groups are exempted. etc

As well there is no ETS market audit or control. It is open slather for rorting. Our ASIC can't even control Australia's domestic companies from committing fraud, insider trading etc.

Rusty:

Mycal:

26 Nov 2013 10:48:57am

Thanks for the opportunity Rusty, don't know that I have a solution but where ETS schemes have worked they have the following characteristics.

1. There has to be an alternative or substitute product. In the case of fossil fuels it probably has to be renewables but it will take time to ramp up. This means we shouldn't start out big, the ETS should increase the marginal cost of fossil fuel consumption so that it exceeds the marginal cost of renewables.

2. The scope of the market has to map to the affected area, in this case the problem is global so the market has to be global eventually. But that doesn't mean we can start regionally. But there can be no exemptions, it has to cover everything. You don't have carbon credits for your car you pay the tax.

3. There has to be tight control over the issuing of carbon credits (unlike the European scheme).

4. There has to be good governance, market controls and transparent regulatory processes.

Peter:

26 Nov 2013 5:21:29am

Agree about the ETS being a complete con. I agree that pollution of the air should be reduced same as pollution of water etc but all the proponents of an ETS should explain in objective detail the "success" of the EU ETS which Labor/Greens want to hook up to. The only message I have read is that "everyone agrees that this is the lowest cost method of reducing emissions" Have searched for some unbiased studies in the EU ETS since 2005 but have not been able to find. The issue is basically about how we produce electricity throughout the world. Any development of solar and wind generation has been brought from Governments introducing subsidies to be recovered from pushing up power prices. The EU ETS has produced zip results. As to Labor claims about "China moving to introduce carbon pricing" is nonsense. As all power generation in China is controlled by the Government they hardly need to tax themselves to encourage them to switch to green energy; they would just do it if they wanted to. All anyone needs to do is look at coal fired capacity. It is planned to increase significantly in the next 10 years throughout the world, including in Germany. The only solution is to fund significant energy R&D and this can only be done by Governments as the so called "market mechanisms" such as a ETS will not do this. Please don't refer to EU emissions history since 2005 as any reduction has nothing to do with their ETS, just reduced consumption of energy due to lower economic activity and closing down uneconomic industrial plants in former east countries.

Bean Counter:

26 Nov 2013 11:55:26am

Look guys, it's like THIS...

2013 is looking like the worst year in human history for alcohol-related domestic violence, and all manner of alcohol-fuelled accidents etc, world-wide. Seven of the worst years ever were in the past decade. What are we going to do about it?

One suggestion is to reduce the production of alcoholic beveridges WITHIN AUSTRALIA. This will not reduce the production of alcoholic beveridges OUTSIDE Australia, and there are no plans to stop the import of booze INTO Australia.

Supporters of this reduction proposal claim that other countries will follow suit when they see us doing it. They know it CANNOT have any effect on the problems they see being caused by Alcoholic drinks.....within the next few thousand years, but are "batsh*t loony" about it having to be done. They don't give a damn if wine-makers, brewery workers etc are made redundant, nor about the imported booze negating every crazy plan they propose.

Whenever someone suggests that it will be a totally pointless step (alcoholic-drink production is rising fast....internationally) unless we simultaneously STOP alcohol getting into Australia (something like stopping overseas CO2 getting in.), they just start shrieking that if we stop producing it is a GOOD THING. Every time they hear of a driver crashing or a woman being bashed they tell us it's Alcohol what done it, and call Abbott "Tooheys Tony" or "Tolleys Tony". No further investigation is required.

When further questioned about whatever they've been accusing Tony of and told that either A) There was no alcohol connection, or B) that there was, and the culprit was Beck's Beer, and/or Remy Martin Brandy, not Tooheys or tolleys, they shriek even louder that everyone's a denier, and start sooking someplace.

It's like that with these juvenile dues of Al Gore + Co. Exactly like that.

Bean Counter:

26 Nov 2013 12:36:10pm

I've often asked why so many Luvvies are shrieking for even more billions of Aussie Taxpayers' / Aussie Workers' dollars to be GIVEN to overseas financial entities via an ETS.

Usually Luvvies assert that they dislike banksters etc, and regard them as lowlife scum. However, as with the tens of billions in interest EACH YEAR being sent to overseas banksters as payment on Labor's debt, these claimed-to-be anti-banksters are mighty keen to get us giving them our money yet again.

Why is this? Well.....

All those who arrange loans for others, or who act as middlemen in any type of financial interaction are PAID by the beneficiaries (the financial institutions in this case) for their help. Mortgage and business brokers; car dealers; furniture and electrical retailers offering "credit" etc etc get a cut. Firms etc arranging for the issuing of debentures and BONDS get a cut. People introducing their mates to bookies and banks get a cut.

Australia Govts are currently more than $1 Trillion in debt (this is Federal, State and Local), the huge part of which is Labor Debt. Even my shire council owes $100 Million (ONE HUNDRED MILLION) as a result of the previous mayor's proflicgacy. That mayor was the ALP's Federal Candidate in 2010! Which means an interest bill of at least $50 Billion per annum, which means total spotters' and trailing commissions of maybe $5 Billion PER ANNUM for the main guys involved. Even if there are 5000 of them that's a million apiece PER YEAR.

The ETS must be worth a billion or two in "gratitudes" I'd reckon, which goes a long way to explaining why so many Luvviesa are so keen on it, I'd say. Anyone care to doubt this?

bobtonnor:

26 Nov 2013 2:15:49pm

look im no financial whiz Bean Counter, but i do have some hi tech wizardry, its called a calculator, a quick scan of the interest rates paid to 'entities' with AAA credit ratings aint 5%, its not even close, for average joes, like myself and the vast majority of other 'average joes' again its not 5%, so if your basing your figures on what you pay on your mortgage you are A) being scammed, B) a soft touch, C) in need of a calculator or D) too lazy to do the research, or E) (god forbid) all of the above.

Marko:

25 Nov 2013 7:49:48pm

"A World Meteorological Organisation report says 2013 is on track to be among the top ten warmest years since modern records began in 1850."

Well that's hardly surprising. The world has been progressively warming since the end of a major global cooling in the late 1700's. We, in all likelihood, have reached the peak of this warming cycle now with many scientists predicting a cooling period immanent.

This cooling and warming cycle has been prevalent in recorded history for at least 3000 years. Have a look at the Minoan, Roman and medieval warming periods that Manne did his best to hide in his discredited "hockey stick". And before you say it has not been discredited ask yourself why the IPCC have dumped it.

Based on written historical accounts, the roman warm period was probably hotter than current. Grapes grown in in England etc...

Really, this crap about it being the warmest period in recorded history discounts the bigger trend that covers millennia.

And as for catastrophic, I remind you that the global average has only increased by 0.8 degrees Celsius in that short time scale you mention. In an air conditioned room I defy you to tell the difference between 24c and 24.8c.

Taswegian:

Marko:

25 Nov 2013 8:51:21pm

I think you will find that the satellite record that has been kept since 1979 shows that at no time has that Arctic been Ice free. In fact this years shows the arctic ice is tracking above the 34 year average.

Forrest Gardener:

Theos:

26 Nov 2013 9:22:08am

It is true that science is not "done" by consensus (whatever that actually means). However, scientific consensuses ARE reached on a great many scientific issues. There is a scientific consensus that the earth orbits the sun. There is a scientific consensus that a water molecule consists of two hydrogen and one oxygen atom. There is a scientific consensus that all life on earth has a common ancestor. AND there is a scientific consensus that the planet is warming up, and human activity since the industrial revolution has contributed significantly to this warming.

Scientific consensuses are reached when all (or almost all) scientists working in a particular discipline form the view that the evidence is sufficient to warrant provisional support for the view. You may not like it, and it may conflict with your ideological, religious or philosophical position, but it is a fact that such a consensus has been reached on the issue of anthropogenic climate change.

mulciber:

26 Nov 2013 10:55:24am

Untrue. There is no consensus. And there is no human signature detectable in the temperature record.

A single person can overturn the agreed upon reality of the entire world by a single observation, as Galileo did when he saw the moons of Jupiter thus proving that the universe beyond the orbit of the moon was not unchangeable.

This is the lifeblood of science and gives it its power, not the fashionable hooey of "consensus" which is its deadly enemy. Read Richard Feynman.

RichardJ:

Mycal:

26 Nov 2013 10:54:59am

Forest you're right, science is not done by consensus, but when it is done, on multiple occassions over extended time periods, all with the same or similar results, a scientific consensus tends to emerge.

You might want to call it group think, I prefer to think of it as acknowledging reality.

Mycal:

25 Nov 2013 10:06:48pm

Marko, the "little ice age" was not a cyclic event, it was caused by a massive volcanic eruption (8 times Krakatoa) in Indonesia.

Some of the so called "warming periods" you cite are debatable in terms of their global impact. The rest of your post is just rubbish and doesn't really address anything. Come the day you actually provide an explanation of what is occurring it will be the you may be worth reading. "Normal cyclical variation" is not an explanation, it is mantra and a description of end states, not causes.

Serenity:

25 Nov 2013 10:25:34pm

Although I know it's useless to present scientific fact to climate change deniers but ...The pacific ocean has warmed by 2/3 of a degree as well.The northern permafrost is melting quicker than first thought and releasing more and more methane.Tropical cyclone in November ... not usual.Super-Typhoon hits the Philippines in November ... not usual in what's supposed to be the dry season.Blizzards in England in November ... not usual.Tornadoes in the US in late Spring ... not usual.

Dandelion:

25 Nov 2013 10:50:01pm

So according to marko altering the Earths atmosphere doesn't matter because, climate has varied in the past and its really hard to notice a less than 1 degree change in the air con settings. Thanks for the advice, but I'm pretty sure we've already got a handle on that (I've seen Ice Age 1, 2 ,3 and 4!).

The grown ups were discussing the potential impact of anthropogenic climate change on our agricultural and economic systems and whether market pricing or government subsidies where the best way to address this externality cost.

The article itself alludes to both the Australian and international political manoeuvring around this issue. I think you will find most of the world accepts the issue exists but are having some trouble with the how we deal with it.

It is often the case that those suffering delusion experience feelings of grandeur, where they just know things to be.

Daniel:

25 Nov 2013 11:45:44pm

Not a lot of difference between 0 degrees and 0.8 degrees either - oops except ice melts.

I really must try to remember that random commentators on the Internet are much smarter than any rent-seeking "expert" or anyone who tries to push their agenda by resorting to that "science" tomfoolery - besides, how has "science" ever benefited anybody?

Greig:

25 Nov 2013 7:02:59pm

But Rusty, the gravy train is not over. The final last breath "agreement" ensures this racket will go on and on indefinitely. And it will continue to waste $billions on trying to avoid some warming (which will probably be beneficial) rather than important issue like widespread availability of clean water, advancing education and birth control technology, and medical research to avoid pandemics.

Mr Zeitgeist:

25 Nov 2013 7:52:25pm

Hi Grieg,

I have special project for you:

Please explain to us the benefits of Direct Action.

1. How much will it cost taxpayers?2. If tree planting is involved, where will the water come from?3. What will the "green army" actually do?4. Why have no details or parliamentary costings been released?

And finally, the bonus question, which until this date NO ONE has been able to answer:

5. Why is a climate denying prime minister proposing a program to mitigate a problem he doesn't believe exists???

roddo:

25 Nov 2013 9:14:39pm

The benefits of Direct Action are simple.

1. It will cost millions not billions.2. The only tree planting will be for show3. The 'green army' will be incentivized to find work, any work.4. No details or costings have been released as this is a 'fig leaf' program to conceal the fact the emperor has no clothes.5. Direct Action is not a program to mitigate climate change.

Direct Action can also be dropped at any time for either nothing at all or for a real CO2 reduction program, depending on international developments.

Australia is not positioned to benefit from the development of green tech so it is natural for us to position our policies on climate change with our competitors - Canada, Russia and South Africa.

Greig:

25 Nov 2013 9:25:02pm

1. How much will it cost taxpayers?

Spending is capped based on our ability to pay, relative to the budget, as opposed to the ALPs view that we have an infinite amount of money to spend (just borrow more). The outcome depends on the response of industry and community to the policy.

2. If tree planting is involved, where will the water come from?

Rain. (I know, controversial isn't it?)

3. What will the "green army" actually do?

Plant trees. At no cost to taxpayers. (i.e no regrets)

4. Why have no details or parliamentary costings been released?

Because the idea is to allow competition for funding based on 'no regrets' principles, it is a flexible system.

5. Why is a climate denying prime minister proposing a program to mitigate a problem he doesn't believe exists?

a) Abbott does not deny climate (whatever that means).

b) Abbott has stated many times that he acknowledges that climate change is real (a scientific fact).

c) Abbott has acknowledged that we face an unquantified risk of future change that deserves our efforts to mitigate.

d) Abbott knows that the current body of evidence does not support the view that we face a climate catastrophe that we are compelled to spend $billions on resolving.

Mr Zeitgeist:

26 Nov 2013 8:43:40am

@Grieg1. "Spending is capped on our ability to pay" - so you're willing to die in a ditch defending a neo-liberal ideology that will not accepot a command economy in time of crisis?Wow, WII would have turned out very different with THAT kind of thinking.

2. "Rain" err, this is a DRY country and what there is must be shared with agriculture. PS: The Magic Pudding is NOT a scientific journal.

3. "Plant trees at no cost" Mmm, so all the following will be delivered for free???a) Soil and rainfall analysisb) Treec) Water (from Coca-Cola Amatil?)d) Transportation of trees, seedstock.e) Planting and horticultural maintenance

4. It is a "flexible system". Which means what? "Competition" for what? How will EFFECTIVENESS be measured from results against intention? How will CO2 levels be reduced?

5. Abbot has NEVER resiled from the "climate science is crap" speech, and yes I've heard him say "...we've always believed in climate change...".He demands the rest of the world take action, which they are at Warsaw, yet like the grumpy adolescent, refuses to engage in the collective action he continually bleated about when in opposition.

JoeBloggs:

26 Nov 2013 9:56:45am

Greig you say,

"2. where will the water come from? Rain. (I know, controversial isn't it?)" - as in the rain that isn't falling in the drought strickened queensland outback? are you one of those people praying to the iron age Canaanite god for rain to come are you?

"3. What will the "green army" actually do? Plant trees. At no cost to taxpayers" - ahh those free trees, free transport of trees, and the people will be forcibly conscripted will they? I take it they will also have to provide their own food and water?

Lastly you state "Abbott does not deny climate (whatever that means)." - as in "climate change is crap"?

Daniel:

James Murphy:

25 Nov 2013 8:43:09pm

According to their latest figures, the UN Green Climate Fund raised about $7.6million (including about $500K from Australia). The "administration costs" were about $7.6 million... (All the info is on their website).

No doubt administration costs will increase to some incredible percentage of revenue. Still, if "charitable foundations" (in the US, at least), only have to spend 10-15% of their income on charitable causes, why should we expect the UN to be any different...

don't believe the media:

26 Nov 2013 6:44:09am

Rusty, based on your view of these thieves and scammers of taxpayers money, i wonder where you stand on our subsidies to unfathomably wealthy fossil fuel companies as we pay them to destroy our life support system?

Rusty:

26 Nov 2013 11:14:55am

Zeit,

Actually I think that I represent the majority of Australians when suggesting that we need more jails/gaols to house more criminals. Our criminal "justice" system is broken - due to soft judiciary handing down non-custodial or extremely short sentences for violent crimes.

In Victorian prisons we currently have one prisoner per cell that has at least two beds.

Lets put two or more crooks in the same cell. That would immediately increase our capacity. And by the way remove their TV sets and other privileges when they misbehave.

RichardJ:

26 Nov 2013 4:15:00pm

Rusty, what a nasty piece of work you are.

And as usual you are wrong on the facts. Hundreds of years of behaving with cruelty through our justice system has failed, utterly and completely. Let's try something a lot better focused that is more about prevention that vengeance.

APM:

25 Nov 2013 2:45:41pm

Warsaw was a shakedown of the West by developing countries. It's ludicrous that we have to compensate the developing world for being 'victims' of small changes in climate. These countries have many other far more obvious problems and behaviours that account for underdevelopment and encourages the culture of handouts, corruption, and not making positive changes for themselves. This is just another example of climate change being used as a socialist Trojan horse to redistribute wealth.

Darren:

25 Nov 2013 6:30:59pm

Small changes in climate? Tell that to the people in the Marshall Islands or the people of the Phillipines. Don't tell me, I know; climate change certainly has had no effect on the severity of extreme weather events. The flat earth climate change deniers are the ones who know what's what because because because... Time to grow up and pay your way denier freeloaders.

APM:

25 Nov 2013 7:16:35pm

Its nuts to compensate the third world because severe weather events are slightly more likely to occur because of AGW. Think of all the social, political, cultural, and religious choices societies make and natural forces that contribute to loss of human potential, and you are telling me that AGW is something to privilege for multibillion never ending compensation, before much has even happened? Get a sense of proportion.

JoeBloggs:

Temperatures have been continuing to rise for the last 15 years, virtually all of which have been the hottest on record.

I do like how you choose to ignore the constantly increasing sea temperatures too.

You also incorrectly state "The storm in The Phillipines was not unprecedented and not the strongest experienced there". Actually it was the fourth most intense tropical cyclone ever recorded and the strongest to have ever hit land.

The steady warming of the oceans is likely to lead to stronger tropical typhoons, said scientists from the intergovernmental panel on climate change in a special report on climate extremes this year. It states that the average tropical cyclone maximum wind speed is likely to increase, but the global frequency of tropical cyclones is likely remain unchanged.

bobtonnor:

26 Nov 2013 2:02:01pm

Yes it was, it was the most powerful storm to ever, anywhere in recorded history to reach landfall, according to Dr Jeff Masters, meteorologist and co-founder of the Weather Underground it was " the strongest tropical cyclone on record to make landfall in world history", i know that may sound ambiguous to you, but not to me.

tomtoot:

25 Nov 2013 6:50:27pm

@APM:- You state "This is just another example of climate change being used as a socialist Trojan horse to redistribute wealth."

Bit of a contradiction don't you think?

But! then again, maybe they were socialists hidden in the wooden horse? - but where are these climate change socialists of today? - you can count me in as one of them if it helps with your numbers count - but I'm one of 7 billion people on this planet - good luck with claiming 97% of us are socialist warmists?

Try reading books or self education and even group therapy - who knows the route to enlightenment - I don't - and nor do you?

Mycal:

25 Nov 2013 10:16:14pm

Yeah APM, those bloody developing countries, they have all the power and control, they are always ripping us off and they are so corrupt the money is wasted anyway. I am getting sick and tired of paying for the privilege of being called a culturally insensensitive, capitalist, imperialist, colonialist exploiter of the worlds poor.

The fact that they are poor, will be the most affected by climate change and have the least resources to combat it is not my problem. No excuse me I have to move the Jag so my wife can get to Merc, she has a hair dressers appointment and wants to be back before the maid has finished cleaning the east wing of mansion on Sydney Harbour.

Mycal:

25 Nov 2013 6:27:53pm

"Australia, Canada, Japan and the USA are not interested, they have started the withdrawal which will effectively leave europe to price themselves out of the world economy"

The US is hamstrung under a conservative congress and they have the actual benefit of reducing CO2 pollution because of the switch to gas. Canada's government is out of step with public opinion (60% agree with the need to do something about climate change). Don't know about Japan. However it's not much of an argument is it? We hardly in the mainstream but numpties like you can lol when the final bills come in and the damage is done.

James Murphy:

25 Nov 2013 10:02:43pm

I don't see why you seem to be making excuses for the US and Canada... the end result is the same, nothing of any value is done, and if their respective governments really wanted to do something, they would find a means to do so.

As for Japan, unsurprisingly, after Fukushima, they've had to go for gas in a massive way, thus, their emissions have risen, and will continue to rise. Obviously, that's a spanner in the works for them, regardless of their intentions.

PB:

26 Nov 2013 3:52:19pm

Japan has no choice but to restart its nuclear reactors. The country is running out of power and thousands have died during the last winters due to no heating. The sensible choice is Nuclear power. Lets look at the big picture in Fukushima, how many people died as a result of radiation exposure? Exactly 0. How many people died at the Daichi plant? Exactly 2. (H2 explosion) How many people died as a result of the Tsnaumi? 15000+. If you took the population of Tokyo and forced them to live in the contaminated area in Fukashima prefecture, their health would actually improve as they are removed from the pollution. Clean up is a problem yes, but not insurmountable. More people die each year from coal mining and emissions than have ever been killed by Nuclear power.

mack:

berational:

26 Nov 2013 3:08:41pm

mack: Throughout most of the 20th century the western world doubled fossil fuel use every 20 years (100% increase) due to its 3% annual growth. For China to only have 40% increase in 20 years with economic growth of almost 10% is quite an achievement.

But that is irrelevant as they have not agreed to cut past usage but have agreed to reduce future usage.

Glamorpig:

matt:

25 Nov 2013 7:56:56pm

Yep, turns out getting your facts from scientists rather than uneducated catholics leaves you better informed. who knew?Just as when every economist in the country said the only market based approach that will work will still be an ETS regardless of what you called it, old phony tony said well tough, you're all wrong, as though a cement factory "manager" would know better, well just because.

John:

Theos:

25 Nov 2013 8:50:06pm

Wow. What a convincing argument. With all the supporting evidence that you've provided and your thoughtful, logical and cogent argument, I have no choice but to reject the scientific consensus and believe whatever it was that you just typed.

Mycal:

AJT:

Dr Who:

26 Nov 2013 12:02:35am

119/222. I have already directed John to the Anderegg paper in PNAS (2010). It has never been shown to be fraud; if it had, the paper would have been withdrawn. He cannot claim ignorance on this subject: He knows his claim to be a lie.

Alpo:

26 Nov 2013 6:19:18am

Ignorant (or is it deceitful?) as always John. Here, read this.... and learn: Bray 2010 Environmental Science and Policy 13: 340-350. There you will find a review of 6 works on scientific consensus about climate change. You will see that the consensus has gone from 40-60% in 1996 to 60-90+% in 2008-2009 depending on what scientists where asked to agree upon.... Cut, paste and remember from now on!

mr shark (not a lawyer):

26 Nov 2013 12:09:49am

Morgan may be trying to talk sense, but he and all the other deniers here are failing miserably. He does not give one shred of evidence for his claims and ignores actions being taken around the world which would refute them , we may not be getting a global agreement just yet, but it will come , because it has to. It is unfortunate that the gfc came when it did because that has sapped much of the funding that could have been used on developing new some strategies . its interesting that morgan rusty and co don't comment on the biggest wealth distribution scam of all time , the GFC bailout of corporations and banks, which has cost astronomical sums . Of course, before that we had the two wars we didn't need to have which have practically bankrupted the USA and has affected the rest of us far more than you think.

neil:

Bean Counter:

26 Nov 2013 12:50:50pm

Marko(7.54pm). It's the Aussie "World Cup Soccer Bid" writ large. $25 Million to a bunch of caviar- loving Junketeers to run a scam so's they could have fun at taxpayers' expense. Then nothing happened.

And now we know the whole selection process itself was a corruption-ridden set-up from start to finish; nothing about the best choice and all that, nor about Soccer. And now they've decided that even the final corrupt choice is a turkey.

BUT everyone on the gravy train had fun, didn't they? THAT's why Rudd gave them the dough in the first place. D'oh!

MJLC:

25 Nov 2013 2:53:06pm

"With climate negotiations set to heat up next year in the lead-up to an anticipated 2015 agreement..."

A very foolish way to start your article Mr Connor - haven't you heard from the Moncktons and Bolts and their script-reading foot-soldiers of this world that negotiations have heated-up and cooled-down over recorded history, and that this has nothing to do with humans?

Dr Who:

Funny, between them they don't seem to have too many papers on climate science. Well, not too many that have made it past peer review anyway. Unless you could the subsequently withdrawn paper by Spencer and Braswell. Now that was funny!

Reinhard:

26 Nov 2013 1:47:43pm

Evan no they are not right, but they are certainly very well paid for being so very wrong.....The Lindzen-Choi paper was debunked for using poor methodology and overstating its conclusions. Lintzen also gets funding from oil interests like Exxon and OPEC, Lord Lawson's Global Warming Policy Foundation and has appeared at the Heartland Institute's conferences as the keynote speaker. Lindzen also has also made various other ludicrous claims such as:- The link between smoking and lung cancer is "weak." - Decrease in water vapor would allow carbon dioxide to escape from the atmosphere. (After it was thoroughly debunked he claimed it was an "old view." Patrick Michaels works for the Cato Institute, an American libertarian think tank originally founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974. Fred Spencer works for the George C. Marshall Institute, funded by Exxon MobilFred Singer is on a $5,000 per month retainer with the Heartland instituteBob Carter and Ian Plimer are also on $1,550 per month from Heartland institute.Bob Carter and William Kininmonth, are also with the Australian Climate Science Coalition, which is funded by the Australian Environment Foundation, which is funded by the International Climate Science Coalition which is funded by the Heartland Institute, which is funded by Koch Industries.And the gravy train rolls on, clickety clack......

climatesceptic7:

Mycal:

25 Nov 2013 6:30:27pm

No, Canada was climatesceptic7, hardly a majority of participants and even Bolt acknowledges that the "global community" were less than impressed. What you don't get about Climate Change is that a) it's happening and b) it's not a scam to research it.

Mycal:

26 Nov 2013 11:15:07am

Evan you can make those asserts about so called "climategates" but they aren't true (or at least no more true than for any other branch of science). You deny the evidence before your eyes because it doesn't sit with your world view.

Natural variability? So tell me what is natural about:

a) the increasing acidification of the oceans? Particularly the Great Southern Ocean which appears most affected and has no local CO2 sourceb) the increased warming of the oceans (latest evidence is that they are hotter now than they have been in 10,000 years, the warming goes down to at least 900 metres and the greatest warming has occurred in the last 60 years)

Provide a scientific explanation for just theses two events that supports your natural variability thesis and I will prostrate myself before your superior wisdom.

Blah:

25 Nov 2013 6:48:19pm

Global warming and climate change offer no economic benefit. Pollution created by big business certainly does. There is nothing to gain by acknowledging what thousands of experts have already proven. Or do you like pollution? How much can money matter if there's no clean air or drinkable water?

Kedjy:

25 Nov 2013 3:00:32pm

Hi John, I agree with our current Government stance as being wholly intelligent. You don't mention the very interesting CFact panel discussion in Warsaw??How is that 16 year pause going, what is the current explanation ?Have you managed to allay the fears of the world's poor and their advocates?Has Mr Flannery or Mr Suzuki sold their waterfront homes yet ?Are you Ok with tens of thousands more dying in this European winter if they face the daunting prospect of eating v heating ?Our dams are near full, when Mr Flannery assured us they would be bone dry right now ?All that ice melting as forecast ? How is that going ?Science John is an constantly evolving paradigm, why don't you look at ALL the science, not just the cherry picked stuff with confirmation bias ?Vulcanism ? Solar cycles ? Deep sea factors ? Microbial influences ? Jetstream fluctuations ?Oh that's right 95% of scientists agree you guys trumpet ? Well, some surveys have it more like just over 50% and falling.I must not care for our kids though, after all I don't want to saddle them with ridiculous costs, schemes that do little to change anything except a few fattening bank accounts and bolster the ego's of some scientists and lobbyists.Now I am reading about the super volcano found under sea that is as big as Olympus Mons and the increasing volcanic activity in the ring of fire. Care to comment ?I'll wait a while until the real science settles a bit thanks before I agree with more mindless spending for no result.

John Coochey :

Anicol:

25 Nov 2013 6:10:48pm

@KedjyThe 15, 16 or 17 year pause is bogus, do yourself a favor and have a look at the relevant graph. I stopped reading your post after this, if you want people to pay attention to your argument then research your statements first.

EVAN:

Marko:

Kedjy:

26 Nov 2013 12:04:50pm

So your IPCC Report is wrong then Anicol ? I merely read the report. Whether or not you pay attention to my arguments is a matter for you alone. I look forward to debating with people with open and sceptical minds and look at ALL scientific opinion, do you have one ?

MiddleLander:

25 Nov 2013 6:25:23pm

And herein lies the fundamental problem with concerted, global efforts to at least limit some of the forecasted and current effects. To this end, I confidently predict little action will ever occur to combat AGW because vested and selfish interests will always prevail. Go and give your kids/grandkids a hug, because in the not too distant future they're going to be very angry with you and your ilk, mate.

Kedjy:

26 Nov 2013 12:07:41pm

So you are OK with people freezing to death because they can't afford heating ? You are OK with denying people in third world countries access to affordable coal fired power ?I hug my grandkids at every opportunity and always caution them to treat "experts" as idiots until confirmed otherwise.

Bean Counter:

CF Zero:

25 Nov 2013 6:31:17pm

Wants some science, lets start with an energy balance equation, amount of energy reflected is less than incident energy, energy is being stored on Earth....so what do you think the stored energy is going to do? Not change things?

Kedjy:

26 Nov 2013 12:10:15pm

Must be some heck of an equation, care to share it ? I once had to prepare an equation to calculate the bulk density of coal, which ran to some hundred odd pages, with numerous variable requiring quantification at the time of calculation. One would imagine your whole of planet/biosphere energy balance equation would be the work of Quantum computers ?

CF Zero:

E1 -E2 = XIf E1 is absorbed energy and E2 is emitted, when E1 is greater than E2 we are getting hotter, when E2 is greater we are cooling.

The models constantly questioned try to predict what happens on Earth when there is no need for it, if E1 is greater than E2 we are absorbing energy and this will manifest in more frequent and severe weather events.

A simple analogy can be drawn with a pot on a stove, when energy from the hotplate goes into the pot it gets hot, take it off the stove and E2 becomes greater than E1 and it cools.

If this topic was presented using the KISS principal we would have already moved on and solved the issue.

Mycal:

25 Nov 2013 6:49:59pm

Kedjy I expect that Mr Conners has more important things to do than respond to idiots. However it's a hobby of mine so allow me to answer some of your questions.

"All that ice melting as forecast ? How is that going ?"Well fairly rapidly actually, glaciers are retreating rapidly, the north pole sea ice is reduced in extent and duration, the south pole land based ice is melting rapidly and putting so much fresh water into the artic ocean that it is reducing salinity significantly.

Yeah, well you see all these things, with the exception of vulcanism are directly related to Climate Change.Vulcanism can actually precipitate signifcant climate change, like the the little ice age (global impact from a really big eruption in Indonesia)Solar cycles, well not actually, seems the "number" used to measure sun spots isn't as accurate as one assumed, in fact there is significant deviations resulting from the method used, so sun spots and solar cycles, while having an impact, may turn out to a) not significant, b) no change or c) really important.Deep sea factors. Latest research (to recent to be included in the IPCC report) indicates that a) the oceans are hotter now than they have been in 10,000 years, b) the warming is evident down to around 900 metres and c) the largest amount of warming has occured within the last 60 years. Microbilogical factors, probably referring to the aerosols released by some plankton that influences cloud formation. The jury is still out on this and more research (scamming) is required. Jetstream fluctuations, the theory is that jetstreams are driven by the temperature differential between the equator and the poles, this differential has been reducing and allowing the jet streams to meander, but more research (scamming) is required to validate it.

So while your waiting for the real science to settle, perhaps you might care to consider that's okay but not climate science?

Kedjy:

26 Nov 2013 9:47:10am

Yes, thanks for the sledge, It's OK,I am very used to it on this subject and Oz politic.I'm in a hurry but at first read, you seem to be in some form of agreement on some points.I think we have much, much more to discover and alarmism and religious fervour from some does the debate real harm.What do your assertions " directly related to climate change" mean ? The climate is ALWAYS changing, is it not ? Are we not arguing about what is normal change and what is abnormal and what may be causing any abnormal change ?Yes, I will happily wait and see what the honest work of many fine minded scientists will uncover as we move ahead.

Alpo:

25 Nov 2013 7:41:17pm

Kedjy... why do you waste your time writing stuff you have absolutely no idea about?.... Empty words can be written by any moron. You are free to joint that club if you wish, this is still a free country. But if you want to be taken seriously, then qualify your comments. You have obviously no idea, repeating idiocies from denialist websites can only sink your cause (whatever that is) further into disrepute.

Kedjy:

26 Nov 2013 9:41:19am

No idea about eh Alpo ? Well, I do work pretty hard for a living and don't have all day to proclaim my brilliance here on the Drum, like some. There is much to support my assertions and questions, if you care to look outside science supporting your own agenda.I do have a science background in geomorphology and meteorology, though quite some years ago. Yours ? Would you care to actually respond to my points like some have, or just call me a moron and a denier ?It seems the ALP venom is not just focussed on politics eh ?So Alpo, I will leave you a simple question, is Science based on argument, debate and the continual discovery of evidence and counter evidence and not the least, often using imagination of something other than the current noosphere set of thoughts, presumptions and hypotheses ?I would truly love to give chapter and verse but running a business here demands huge amounts of attention. Many others have so go and have a look !Maybe you have been "joint the club" a bit too much lately ?

Alpo:

26 Nov 2013 12:15:59pm

Give your list of references to back up your claims and I may put the time into trying to understand the evidence base for what you say, criticise it and see how solid or wobbly it is. As such your list is just a string of the usual stereotypical talking points of denialists. You just throw them out there and expect the others to put their effort into properly arguing against. I am always happy to engage seriously with serious denialists (ask several people here), but the repetitious, stereotypical ones bore me to death... Okay, just to help you, this is what you write: "Vulcanism ? Solar cycles ? Deep sea factors ? Microbial influences ? Jetstream fluctuations ?"... Qualify each one of those issues. What do you know about them, from which sources. How does that string of question marks fit with your argument? Explain yourself.

------------------------------------------------------------------BTW, I have as little time as you have, but I am happy to spend my free time doing this service to the community.

Kedjy:

26 Nov 2013 2:45:29pm

repetitious, hysterical ones... Oh I know who you mean !! I get to read such drivel almost daily here, seething with retribution and hatred, know who I mean ?I will pull together the sources you require and post them against your next tirade, not that I care to educate you as I think it's time wasted. Still, you seem to care so providing an alternate information set may assist. I may well agree with you eventually but not right now.Are you sure you are doing your community a service ? Really ?I work with the homeless each weekend, do volunteer bush restoration and Lifeline counselling, I figure that provides my community a small service rather than ranting on a lefty biased forum.

Aria:

"Have you managed to allay the fears of the world's poor and their advocates?"

Relevance?

"Has Mr Flannery or Mr Suzuki sold their waterfront homes yet ?"

And how does owning waterfront property impact on the science of climate change?

"Are you Ok with tens of thousands more dying in this European winter if they face the daunting prospect of eating v heating ?Our dams are near full, when Mr Flannery assured us they would be bone dry right now ?All that ice melting as forecast ? How is that going ?"

Here's the thing. Your argument against global warming being bad consists of the following:"Global warming doesn't exist because of X""Global warming is in fact good because it prevents people from freezing"

Notice how using these simultaneously, is contradictory. Do you argue that GW exists, or not?

"Science John is an constantly evolving paradigm, why don't you look at ALL the science, not just the cherry picked stuff with confirmation bias ?"

Loaded question, implying John is not looking at all the science. In addition, no proof to back up accusations of confirmation bias.

"Oh that's right 95% of scientists agree you guys trumpet ? Well, some surveys have it more like just over 50% and falling."

Person accusing other person of confirmation bias pulls out stat from "some surveys", implicitly admitted to be limited in scope. Go figure.

"Now I am reading about the super volcano found under sea that is as big as Olympus Mons and the increasing volcanic activity in the ring of fire. Care to comment ?"

Not sure if this is some sarcasm, but for your information, Olympus Mons is taller than the deepest depths of Earth oceans. In fact, it would tower over 10 km above sea level, even if placed at the deepest point. In addition, "Now I am reading" generally invites an explanation and discussion of WHAT you are reading.

Kedjy:

26 Nov 2013 12:24:16pm

Yep, happy to in my short lunchbreak. Re the supervolcano, check the Uni of Utah and Uni of Houston's recent articles on this, Tamu Massif. Nearly as big as Olympus Mons, did not mean as high, their words.Re waterfront homes. If I come out with alarmist statements about rapidly rising sea/river levels as these people do, I would be selling my waterfront property lickety split, wouldn't you ?re the world's poor, you are happy for people in the nthn hemisphere to have to make decisions between eating and heating ? You deny 3rd world countries access to cheap power ? Think about it.Re GW, yes it is occurring, the debateable issue is how fastor slow, what is causing it, what can realistically be done to mitigate the causes.Climate change always has and always will occur, look at the geologic record for real hard proof of what has occurred.I read far and wide on all manner of subjects as I generally don't watch the idiot box.Perhaps those of us educated during the Ice Age scare campaign are a little sceptical of recent agw alarmist claims, some us think we have darned good reason. The latest IPCC Report is clouded by political interference imo, as they all have been and will be. Can we please see the raw data and omit the political influence ?

Aria:

26 Nov 2013 1:52:28pm

"Yep, happy to in my short lunchbreak. Re the supervolcano, check the Uni of Utah and Uni of Houston's recent articles on this, Tamu Massif. Nearly as big as Olympus Mons, did not mean as high, their words."

Yes I remember reading about that. OK, we've clarified this point. I'm still not sure why you brought it up though.

"Re waterfront homes. If I come out with alarmist statements about rapidly rising sea/river levels as these people do, I would be selling my waterfront property lickety split, wouldn't you ?"

Current sea level rise is 3mm/year. In the absence of stats about how high above the waterline these properties are, it's a stretch to suggest they should be selling their stuff.

"re the world's poor, you are happy for people in the nthn hemisphere to have to make decisions between eating and heating ? You deny 3rd world countries access to cheap power ? Think about it."

Right, that's what you meant. I respond by noting your fallacy of alternatives. You suggest that the only solution proponents of AGW propose is forcing everyone, including 3rd world countries, to cut their emissions drastically, causing harm to said 3rd world countries. There is nothing to suggest that this is the only solution.

"Re GW, yes it is occurring, the debateable issue is how fastor slow, what is causing it, what can realistically be done to mitigate the causes."

A reasonable point.

"Climate change always has and always will occur, look at the geologic record for real hard proof of what has occurred."

Also true, but the geologic record doesn't imply anything about the ability of humans to influence the climate.

"Perhaps those of us educated during the Ice Age scare campaign are a little sceptical of recent agw alarmist claims, some us think we have darned good reason. The latest IPCC Report is clouded by political interference imo, as they all have been and will be. Can we please see the raw data and omit the political influence ?"

Does the IPCC report not include adequate references to the raw scientific data? Have you actually tried accessing said data?

Dr Who:

26 Nov 2013 12:22:40am

1. Current explanation for pause is that a decadal cooling trend in which heat is being transferred at an accelerated rate to the lower oceans (see Journal of Climate, Vol 26, page 7298 for more information). This will probably reverse in a couple of years' time.2. I'm sure the world's poor and their advocates are quite rightly concerned about the consequences of climate change.3. My understanding was that Flannery's house was a riverfront, not a beachfront, one. Not sure who you mean by Suzuki.4. Overly simplistic question. Not entirely sure what you're talking about.5. Flannery stipulated that the prediction was based on the hypothesis that the drought might not break, which, given long-term drying out of the Eastern seaboard is the current prediction of the CSIRO, was not unreasonable. There was no assurance that the dams would be "bone dry" by now.6. Most ice around the world is in retreat, yes. There are a few exceptions in areas which are experiencing elevated snowfalls, but exceptions do not set the rule.7. John is not guilty of confirmation bias, you are.8. Probably the reason for decadal changes. None of what you mention explain the long-term trend, or why post-industrial warming has been so rapid compared to temperature drift of the preceeding 600K years; only an enhanced greenhouse effect satisfies this explanation.9. See Anderegg, PNAS (2010). 10. First eight words I feel were unfortunately correct. The rest of your statement is garbage.11. Olympus Mons is the largest mountain in the solar system. There cannot be a supervolcano as large on Earth. Isotope readings also rule out volcanoes as a likely source of the extra CO2. Care to think things through before sounding off?12. It is (at least, as much as science can be).

Forrest Gardener:

Alpo:

26 Nov 2013 9:46:39am

Forrest, if you care reading the article quoted by Dr Who (Meehl et al. 2013 Journal of Climate 26: 7298-7310) you will see that they mention the reduced mixing of upper and lower levels water in the oceans during periods of global warming "hiatus" (reduced warming). This makes sense if it is a side effect of the concomitant "hiatus" in solar radiation that is also observed during these periods of slow global warming. During periods of global-warming-"hiatus", that are caused by low solar radiation, upper layers of the ocean tend to cool down, whereas the deeper ones remain warmer. So, in my view the issue is not so much: Where the extra heat has gone? But that the amount of heat coming from the Sun has just decreased.

Mycal:

Kedjy:

26 Nov 2013 2:48:37pm

Now that is something I can get my teeth into Mycal, let's go ! Noetic science anyone ?. Are we what we think we are ? Is no-mind the correct human state of consciousness? Or am I just a mischievious pixie ? My gran thought so !

Dr Who:

don't believe the media:

26 Nov 2013 6:55:42am

Kedjy, this is cherry picking and uninformed opinion at its best.And the ongoing conspiracy that climate scientists are in it for the money is quite mind numbing. If you knew anything about science you would know, especially in this redneck backwater, that it is the last industry a greedy, money obsessed person would choose. I think coal, oil and media would be far more profitable.

Kedjy:

26 Nov 2013 9:32:03am

I think Messrs Gore and Suzuki are doing quite nicely out of this, as well as a lot of others. Mr Gore, contrary to his many statements about the planetary harm caused by aircraft useage, still manages to clock up many, many air miles.

Billy Bob Hall:

Desert Woman:

25 Nov 2013 3:02:55pm

There will be many climate related disasters before 2015 which will heighten concern, action and the focus on Australia. After the Indonesian debacle, I have little hope that the Coalition can rise to the occasion.

handjive of climatefraud.inc:

Greig:

25 Nov 2013 7:11:33pm

"There will be many climate related disasters before 2015 "

Only in your imagination, Desert Woman - climate scientists know that it is near impossible to discern extreme climate events from natural variability, and even harder to attribute those events to AGW. Even the IPCC has had to admit that there is little connection between observed climate change and drought, flood, storms etc. Its all in the latest IPCC AR5 and SREX reports, suggest you get up to date with the latest science.

Mycal:

25 Nov 2013 10:26:59pm

Greig, natural variability occurs around a mean value. Unfortunately most of the mean values for climate change indicators appear to be a moving mean with a positive slope. Do you understand the implication?

Forrest Gardener:

Mycal:

26 Nov 2013 11:26:46am

Well yes, my favourite is the probability of the number of Prussian cavalry officers kicked to death by their horses in any one year, it's named after the French Army officer that worked it out. (look it up). I am also enamoured by distributions with the property of "heteroscadaity" or "heteroscadacity" not because of the distribution but because it offers me the chance to use big words that very few people understand.

Mycal:

26 Nov 2013 11:31:30am

Yep I would understand the implication, I think the IPCC does as well when it refers to average global surface temperatures.

But here's the thing, I also know of other key indicators of global change that are statistically significant and not a result of natural variation. Your assertion that "science has yet to identify AGW related climate extremes within the noise of natural climate variability" is false.

Greig:

Perhaps it is possible, yet the IPCC (whilst confirming that CO2 and temperatures have risen) has failed to make a connection to weather events, as reported in the latest AR5 and SREX assessments. Look them up.

They state, in summary:

&#9726;?Overall, the most robust global changes in climate extremes are seen in measures of daily temperature, including to some extent, heat waves. Precipitation extremes also appear to be increasing, but there is large spatial variability?&#9726;?There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century?&#9726;?Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century ? No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin?&#9726;?In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale?&#9726;?In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems?&#9726;?In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950?&#9726;?In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low?

When are you going to realise that science is not on the side of those calling for urgent action on climate change.

Alpo:

26 Nov 2013 9:57:07am

This is from the IPCC summary Craig:- "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased"- "Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth?s surface than any preceding decade since 1850 (see Figure SPM.1). In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983?2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence)."- "Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence). It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (0&#8722;700 m) warmed from 1971 to 2010 (see Figure SPM.3), and it likely warmed between the 1870s and 1971."- "Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass, glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide, and Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent (high confidence)"- "The rate of sea level rise since the mid-19th century has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia (high confidence). Over the period 1901?2010, global mean sea level rose by 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] m"- "The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. CO2 concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions. The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification".... To continue

Greig:

Chris L:

25 Nov 2013 7:17:55pm

I wouldn't be too hopeful DW. We've already been experiencing record temperatures over consecutive years and the rate of natural disasters has been increasing steadily, yet still many manage to make it all go away by shutting their eyes tight and sticking their fingers in their ears.

Desert Woman:

25 Nov 2013 8:24:22pm

Yes Chris, there's a lot of that and far too much hoping that the neighbours will cop it worse than us. However, the cost continues to rise which for some of these 'leaders' seems to be the only thing that matters. We'll see at what point the pain becomes unbearable.

roddo:

A report showing a worldwide trend to more extreme weather events would support your case.I have seen a couple of UN reports indicating no such trend.I have seen no report indicating such a trend.

Please note that a reduction in the number of less extreme cyclones with the number of extreme cyclones staying the same shows an increase in the percentage of extreme cyclones without supporting a trend to more extreme cyclones.

Desert Woman:

26 Nov 2013 7:13:40am

Roddo, I thought your crew rubbished all reports from the UN and scientists. Anyway, you may like to consult a nice graph documenting disasters from Munich Re who have billions of reasons to get their facts right.

matt:

25 Nov 2013 8:03:16pm

you mean those no hoper nations that provide you with all the cheap goods that allow you to live your vacuous wasteful life of luxury? you would think these ingratiates would show a little compassion to those who suffer to ensure they live like a king

reaver:

26 Nov 2013 10:56:25am

"nations that provide you with all the cheap goods that allow you to live your vacuous wasteful life of luxury." Which nations out of all those demanding an increased handout are they, matt? What cheap goods do we get from Angola, Ethiopia or from the vast majority of those countries?

Marko:

reaver:

25 Nov 2013 8:14:45pm

Anicol, the opinion polls a week before the 2013 election were predicting a 50/50 split between the coalition and Labor. We all saw how that turned out. Whether the polls are accurate or inaccurate is ultimately irrelevant. As they say "There's only one opinion poll that counts" and that's an election.

Mycal:

25 Nov 2013 6:52:03pm

EVAN the best way for the coalition to loose the next election is to follow your advice. I can only assume that you are a left wing double agent bent on destroying TA and his government. For that I thank you.

berational:

getsmart:

25 Nov 2013 3:05:59pm

Per capita per capita. Total emissions as a percentage of world total is the size of one drop of water in the vast Pacific. Let's forget about this feelgood subject - it's way way out of proportion, it only gives something to live for and bowing to pressure from peers. Let the vast cities of the world, any one of which contains 23 mill. people, bear the brunt of dirty air & water. Maybe smuggle educational material on pollution abroad. I separate recyclables from rubbish, don't have a car, burn 2 max lightbulbs and a 25 cm TV at night, no newspapers/mags, don't smoke, hardly buy anything except food - hey everyone, do that. It's not a religion. Don't let cars & power companies eat all your cash.

havasay:

25 Nov 2013 6:24:53pm

How utterly ludicrous an assertion, we are the world's twelfth largest economy and our emissions are but a drop of water in the pacific ocean.

I don't have a problem with any one expressing an opinion contrary to mine but why the lame excuses ? Why dont climate deniers just admit that they don't want to risk a reduction in their first world living standards and dont really care what happens to future generations ?

Forrest Gardener:

havasay:

25 Nov 2013 6:25:31pm

How utterly ludicrous an assertion, we are the world's twelfth largest economy and our emissions are but a drop of water in the pacific ocean.

I don't have a problem with any one expressing an opinion contrary to mine but why the lame excuses ? Why dont climate deniers just admit that they don't want to risk a reduction in their first world living standards and dont really care what happens to future generations ?

JohnM:

26 Nov 2013 8:54:17am

Very true. Have you seen the Climate Institute web site? Only one of its 12(?) staffers has any background in climate matters and that was in the implementation of climate policy rather than investigating the science.

Anyone who think the Climate Institute is an authority on climate matters really does need to think again.

Billy Bob Hall:

ThatFlemingGent:

25 Nov 2013 10:40:42pm

"Blah blah you lost.."

Get this into your heads, party hacks and born-to-rulers: You can parrot this all you like but remember that almost half the populace didn't vote for the climate change-denying Coalition and they have as much right to oppose their policy as you did when you were in Opposition.

(That is if you actually give a rats for participatory democracy - this "mandate" nonsense and Newman's abuses make me wonder about the conservative mindset in this regard)

Mycal:

25 Nov 2013 6:58:11pm

EVAN the message they got was that we were "difficult, if not obstructive"

Couldn't we have just voted no and been done with it? If we haven't anything to contribute why the hell were we there in the first place? The only reason I can think of is to show the world that "Australia is not going to be fleeced by the carbon carpetbaggers"

EVAN:

awake:

25 Nov 2013 3:18:12pm

Why is anyone surprised. We are in deep dodo with this government world wide bad enough with Indonesia our near neighbour of 300 million people.

Now we have been made to look even more stupid in the Global Warming fiasco Abbott has thrown at us. They can't see global warning they are not allowed. They must do as they are told and they promised in they got into power. Not for us the ordinary voter oh no.

Be careful ABC you will be next, everything else is gone even Gonski - they will strip us bare of knowledge.

JohnM:

25 Nov 2013 3:20:15pm

I am very pleased that Australia didn't kowtow to the nonsense. Even the IPCC can't tell us whether CO2 has a major impact on temperature or not. The IPCc can't account for the absence of warming over the last 15 years and it admits that climate models exaggerate the impact of CO2. Together that means it doesn't know what's happening, at least not enough to make confident predictions.

It seems that John Connor turns a blind eye to the IPCC's statements, but then what do you expect? According to the Climate Institute web site Connor isn't an expert on climate matters, in fact the CI has just one staffer with any background in climate matters and that experience is implementing climate policy, not in climate science.

Anicol:

25 Nov 2013 6:20:34pm

Have you looked at the graph in relation to this no warming over the past 15 years? I doubt you have because anyone who has looked at it will confirm it is a deceitful claim that says a lot about those that keep repeating it as fact.

JohnM:

- read page 3 of the IPCC 5AR WG I SPM where it talks about the trend over the last 15 years being somewhere between slightly positive and slightly negative.

- read page 10 where we are told that "some" climate models "overestimate" the influence of CO2.

John Connor has no experience in climate science and therefore has no idea whether the claims made at Warsaw were credible or not. It's true that he's entitled to his opinion, it's just that his opinion is worthless.

Reinhard:

26 Nov 2013 12:46:34pm

John for once can you stop paraphrasing and provide an actual, factual and properly referenced quote... Here is a good example for you to follow.: "The rate of atmospheric warming over the past 15 years (1998-2012) is +0.05 [-0.05 to +0.15] degrees C per decade. This period begins with a strong El Nino, and is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951-2012) of +0.12 [+0.08 to +0.14] degrees C per decade. Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence). It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (0-700m) warmed from 1971 to 2010."[Source: AR5 WG1 Summary for Policy Makers (approved 27 Sep 2013)]

Aria:

25 Nov 2013 7:58:33pm

I am sick and tired of this 15 years nonsense.

Go and read "Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends" (Cowtan, Way). Digital object identifier (DOI): 10.1002/qj.2297. It was published in the last few months.

tl;dr: from 1997-2012, the new data shows that the decade warming trend rises from the much vaunted "pause" of 0.05 degrees to 0.12 degrees, which is right on the IPCC average.

Additional general points of interest:

1) Climate is NOT just temperature.2) The climate varies in the short term (decades). Example: ENSO.3) When we have data that is contrary to our models, we discuss and revise those models, or attempt to find explanations for the contrary data. We must also take into account variations and use proper statistical analysis. We do NOT decide on whims to throw out our theories and go on short-sighted, politically motivated rants of "I told you so". We APPLY the scientific method.

Blueboy:

26 Nov 2013 12:02:50am

Gosh I agree with you. I am sick of reading that the temperature has not increased as the models predict in non other report than the latest IPCC ! Duh! What you don't believe what the IPCC says. Well I agree with you again mate. Now you would not be hypocritical and accept the IPCC reports when it suits you but not when it does not?Me I don't accept anything that the IPCC says because I have never seen the United Nations do anything worth while except look after their own interest. I bet you can't even see the inconsistency between your comment and the fact that your holy bible the IPCC reports says the opposite. The scam is over get used to it. You have been conned just like the rest of the world was with the Y2K scam at the turn of the century. Yes the world has warmed slightly but if you think man can control the climate you are as naive as those that believed king Canute could control the tide. The world has and will continue to evolve and change. You know the Ice age, evidence of forests where the Sahara now exits, sea shells and fossils in the middle of Australia etc. I could go on but I would be wasting my time. A zealot will never change.

Aria:

" What you don't believe what the IPCC says. Well I agree with you again mate. Now you would not be hypocritical and accept the IPCC reports when it suits you but not when it does not?"

Did you even read my post? The paper calls into question some data the IPCC used. We hence discuss that data. Do not weave science with politics. If a body or scientist makes a claim (example: IPCC) that is later rebutted by new data, do we DISTRUST the entire body? Nope, that's political. Do we discuss that data and follow the scientific method? Yes, that's scientific.

"Me I don't accept anything that the IPCC says because I have never seen the United Nations do anything worth while except look after their own interest."

Fallacy of argument from personal experience. Plus, the UN consists of its member nations, and is hardly an independent body.

"I bet you can't even see the inconsistency between your comment and the fact that your holy bible the IPCC reports says the opposite."

Assertion I hold the IPCC reports as my holy bible. Attempt to futuretell by suggesting I don't see the inconsistency between my comment and the IPCC report. Inability to notice how in science, new data comes to light. Inability to properly separate politics from science by suggesting scientists always hold steadfast to one body of publications, even with new data.

"The scam is over get used to it. You have been conned just like the rest of the world was with the Y2K scam at the turn of the century. "

"Yes the world has warmed slightly but if you think man can control the climate you are as naive as those that believed king Canute could control the tide. "

Sticking in a random simile comparing me to King Canute's fans doesn't support your argument either.

"The world has and will continue to evolve and change. You know the Ice age, evidence of forests where the Sahara now exits, sea shells and fossils in the middle of Australia etc. I could go on but I would be wasting my time. A zealot will never change."

The fact that the world continues to evolve and change doesn't suggest anything about whether humanity can influence that evolution and change. Use of pejorative "zealot" suggesting I am some sort of religious fanatic. Unsubstantiated assertion.

JohnM:

Cowtan and Way was shown to be flawed within 24 hours of its publicity hitting the web. The method used has no credibility. See Judith Curry's blog for details.

I'm all for applying the Scientific Method, but do you know what it is?

1 - gather data2 - from the data formulate a hypothesis3 - test the hypothesis against historical data, continue to test it against new observations and use it to predict future observations4 - if the hypothesis in 3 fails, go back to step 2.

Here's what the UNEP did to establish the IPCC and what the UNFCCC which ran the Warsaw conference continues to do:

1 - think of hypothesis2 - seek data to support the hypothesis3 - maximise publicity of the hypothesis so that the public pressures governments into providing more funding for step 2.

Aria:

26 Nov 2013 11:26:04am

Cowtan and Way themselves have personally responded to Judith Curry and refuted her arguments comprehensively. In addition, attempting to rebut a peer-reviewed paper with a blog is highly questionable. No, I don't care how many degrees Curry has. Go and publish a proper scientific paper.

"1 - gather data2 - from the data formulate a hypothesis3 - test the hypothesis against historical data, continue to test it against new observations and use it to predict future observations4 - if the hypothesis in 3 fails, go back to step 2."

Agreed; however I would say the failure of the hypothesis in step 3 should be followed by some investigation of why it failed, and whether there could be flawed data if a hypothesis of some repute is being contradicted, before the entire hypothesis is thrown out.

"Here's what the UNEP did to establish the IPCC and what the UNFCCC which ran the Warsaw conference continues to do:

1 - think of hypothesis2 - seek data to support the hypothesis3 - maximise publicity of the hypothesis so that the public pressures governments into providing more funding for step 2."

StephenS:

25 Nov 2013 3:20:42pm

Think money and answers fall into place.

To achieve the outcomes necessary China and India must pull back from over reliance on cheap outdated technology for power generation. Coal has been cheap and still is abundant hence its historical first choice for power generation. Oil has become more expensive and is getting to be riskier and more costly to obtain. Gas has been relatively cheap and abundant and easier to obtain.

To modernise power generation is costly but with more and more of its populace demanding cleaner air China must and will move to cleaner power generation methods in the near future. India is not quite as wealthy as China but it too will feel and respond to these pressures.

This will impact on Australia's economy over the next 5 to 10 years in the following ways:

1) Coal export demand will diminish as will coal prices for both export and domestic sales.

2) Gas prices will increase for both export and domestic sales.

By not being actively involved at the Ministerial level then Abbot and his government can try to eliminate or seriously impede cost increases domestically. He can also help the state governments keep old style coal burning power stations going and indeed increase their numbers if needed so as to prop up a soon to be ailing coal mining sector.

In this way he can appear to be delivering on his pre election promise to lower power bills for everyone.

No doubt we will not achieve real cuts in our electricity bills but we will be told that by comparison to percentage increases in Europe, China, India etc. he has saved us these huge increases and thus he has delivered on his promise.

Lies, damned lies and statistics. Politician know how to use them all.

Greig:

25 Nov 2013 7:30:59pm

"1) Coal export demand will diminish as will coal prices for both export and domestic sales"

Since Australia (in particular NSW) sells the highest quality black coal, and China and India continue to build 4 coal plants a week, I think our cola will be in high demand for a long time to come. And prices will increase which will encourage more nuclear.

Stephen S:

26 Nov 2013 10:02:04am

My point being all forms of coal demand will diminish unless China and India in particular choose to adopt reburying technologies and other technologies are developed to help burn more effectively and thus more efficiently.

Any large scale reduction in demand will lead to a surplus of coal including NSW black coal and this will lead to price drops in order to sell it. However, if demand weakens too much then mines including NSW mines will be closed as they become less profitable to operate.

Australia has one vital asset and competitive edge at present and that is our relatively clean air and water when compared to Europe, China, Japan etc. We do not value this because it costs us money to protect it.

Our entrepreneur, in general,s have no vision they only go for the quick buck. They only want to pull it out of the ground and put it on a ship ASAP to get the dollars rolling in. This why we have Gas exploration companies wanting to get coal seam gas on our prime agricultural land and risk contaminating the water and thus the food chain. We get a premium on our agricultural prices at present but let the soil get as contaminated as China's farmlands and our fisheries contaminated through run off like most of Asia's waters then bang goes the future sales.

We are so busy at government and business level concentrating on getting quick bucks we will not invest in value adding our agricultural and mining products.

Why?

Because it costs money to invest in coal improvement processes that will allow it to burn quicker, more intensively and more completely. It costs more to have food processing factories etc. Because of this our multi billionaire's do not invest in the nations and their family futures. They are too short term in their views. Imagine a USA where the Ford's, Vanderbilt's, Morgan's etc. did not build businesses to adapt and grow into the future.

Investing is for the future not just the quick buck if you want a stable rewarding future. To get quick bucks all you are doing is gambling and gamblers usually win big for a while but then lose spectacularly. Our corporate collapses are populated with gamblers and inflexible non adaptive dinosaurs.

matt:

25 Nov 2013 3:21:33pm

The greatest con job Abbott pulled was somehow convincing enough Australians that they had a choice in all this. All governments can only react to external pressures and the rest of the world is certainly not going to just sit back and let Australia act like it is responsible to nobody but its self. We are already seeing it with Indonesia over asylum seekers and when the smoke clears on this Australia's name will be mud and I doubt that a number of countries will let us forget that.

EVAN:

reaver:

25 Nov 2013 8:30:38pm

"we better put him behind lock and key..."Ahh, the soothing, ever present drone of the left demanding that people who do things that they don't like be locked up. What crime have they committed? What laws have they broken? What does it matter when they've obviously committed the greatest crime of all- not heeding the tut-tutting of our "betters"?

Poisonous Mushroom:

25 Nov 2013 3:27:52pm

It seems to me Australians will never know if Abbott prevented his Minister going to the Warsaw meeting, or if the Minister decided he wished to show the world through his actions alone the contempt he has for those nations that are trying to alleviate the impact of climate change on those most at risk and dependent on others acting both meaningfully and swiftly.

Reinhard:

26 Nov 2013 12:39:58pm

Forrest there is no "alarmist cause" the only "cause" I see is in the constant deception and lies of the denialist camp..1: Demand accurate prediction and quantification of a science that has so many variables that it cannot be accurately predicted or quantified.2: Ignore any and all falsifiable predictions which do come true3: Cover up the total failure to explain the rationale of 1 and 2.

CC:

25 Nov 2013 3:34:55pm

As much as would like to be the centre of attention with our 2-3% of world emissions we are truly nothing but a bit player.We have had individuals from Australia in the past wanting to use these forums as a way of personal edification thus setting unreasonable expectations.I feel the author of this piece is one of a growing band of individuals who are fed from the gravy train that was created and can't see this in a rational light.Our response was measured and in line with what level of involvement is appropriate.

reaver:

anote:

25 Nov 2013 9:02:24pm

As a proportion of the world's CO2 emissions our small contribution are endlessly touted as making our position irrelevant and not mattering. This view appears to come almost exclusively from those do not believe in human caused climate change or do not really want us to do anything about it anyway. Out of self interest they ignore counter rationale.

Australia's international influence is well above what it would be if it was attributed on a per capita basis. That was gained by recognition of being a principled player.

Australia's per capita contribution to CO2 emissions was the highest and may still be the highest in the world except for a few geographically small countries with much smaller populations. At the very least we need to show a genuine preparedness to contribute a comparable effort.

Australia, like the USA, has lost much of its high regard and trust. We will deservedly continue to regress towards being less of a 'bit player' influentially if attitudes like this quote continue to take hold: "As much as would like to be the centre of attention with our 2-3% of world emissions we are truly nothing but a bit player."

Bahbet:

25 Nov 2013 8:15:11pm

"These climate negotiations aren't just a sandbox to the side of 'real' trade, economic, international negotiations. They are deeply enmeshed. Bad behaviour in one risks consequences in others." This is a very good description of the subtle workings of our global village. One only has to follow the history of the Olympic Games to note that what was formally on the agenda -sport- was only ever part of the story. Subscripts include organic networking, , and grass-roots diplomacy. And, yes, plain old fashioned talk. Send the highest ranking personnel possible to such rare events, please. The Warsaw Climate Summit was a huge opportunity for the government, per se. It should have been ministerially attended. Instead back home for months at a time there has been endless bickering about various politicians' alleged 'abuse' of travel funds, to weddings and other more ordinary events.Interesting to compare those soapbox dramas with the mishandled opportunity to attend a Northern Hemisphere based (thus different climatically =we can learn) multidisciplinary hub of science and letters on a matter important to everyone. Participation was downgraded and as good as dismissed despite a ,more committed attendance not involving excessive travel costs. The cost of closed minds is hard to reckon, but it will be high in the end.... The less said the better about that sad shadow play of quite aggressive overreaction to prevailing thinking on climate issues.The greater worry is that being found 'difficult' or 'obstructive' at an international meeting of any description is to be found wanting

mick:

25 Nov 2013 3:45:51pm

Finally this fairytale money pit has been put back to an interest group for those concerned in the mystic art of pyschogreen weather. The japanese decided even after a horrific natural event that wasting money on this dream is not worthwhile. The UN should focus on real human tragedy today/now in the asian/middle east and forget about this story. A few diplomats tut tutting over weather is where it belongs. The sooner we shut down this caper and focus on our country the better. We dont need to be first here let NZ and the tasmanians carry the torch on this. This is an ALP/Green hobby, let them argue the case for the lefties. Keep Australia out of these money go rounds.

Gr8Ape:

Glamorpig:

25 Nov 2013 7:19:03pm

To do what you claim, you need to totally deny the science. I know it isn't nice to hear, but then the truth can be harsh. It doesn't care less what you think. As Phiilip K Dick said, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." It doesn't go away if you deny it either.

Jim:

Theos:

25 Nov 2013 9:01:19pm

And on the subject of religion.

If the Pope made an ex-cathedra pronouncement supporting the scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change, would our PM change his opinion, or would he claim the pronouncement was "crap"?

Peter of Melbourne:

Tell you what John, when the Governments of the BRIC group and the United States of America cement actual CO2 reduction measures into law then I will look at Australia's position again.

You climate crazies are moronic if you believe Australia should take on a burden for an issue of which we have negligible impact on, then again the reason the LNP was voted in is because the majority of Australians understand that you and your ilk are just running another rentseeking scam which is sucking in the pathetically gullible.

Lord Mock:

26 Nov 2013 11:47:19am

Dear Peter,

I say old chap, steady on there, one can't accuse climate crazies for lying without also accusing the other side, which to the best of my knowledge also lie to suit their agenda. One must be consistent in ones argument eh what.

Peter of Melbourne:

26 Nov 2013 3:46:51pm

Thats the best you can do? Monk lied so we can lie too? The bottom line is this is not an issue that has been caused by the Australian people and it is an issue that cannot be solved by the Australian people. We are responsible as a nation and as a continent for at the very most, depending on whose figures you look at and want to believe, 1.5% of total manmade CO2 output.

Considering we are a 1st world society and like all 1st world society's, we are energy hungry then we are not doing too bad. You have a problem with mans CO2 output, well your main culprits are North America and Eurasia. You want to reduce or stop Australia's CO2 emissions in a meaningful way then start lobbying the Feds for nuclear powerplants, Thorium plants generate one hell of a lot less waste than Uranium plants and they are pretty much the only viable cost effective alternative to coal.

gbe:

25 Nov 2013 3:50:52pm

It appears the only thing these endless talks achieve is more hot air and we never question the accuracy of figures relating to global emissions or each countries contribution or reduction in global emissions the green activists just except anything presented without question and anyone with a query or question is attacked as blinkered climate denier.

Glamorpig:

25 Nov 2013 7:22:44pm

No, the 97% of climate scientists who verify climate change never thought to check the data they are using, you delusional bonehead. They never thought to question the data. Thank god we have you to tell us the truth, or those danged scientists would just keep on with their facts and their evidence....

Marko:

25 Nov 2013 3:51:41pm

"is not enough to ensure the collective goal of avoiding global warming of more than two degrees."

(1) All of the major global temperature records show no statistically signifcant warming in 15 years. One sattelite based temperature record (RSS) shows 17 years without warming. The IPCC in their recent report acknowledged this phenomenon.

(2) Despite all predictions that we would lose the arctic ice cap, we have come no where near this prediction. In fact recent evidence indicates that the arctic ice cover has increased this season above the 34 year average.

All this despite the continual rise in global CO2. I believe we are now past the 400ppm mark which was touted for years as being the magic number that would signify catastrophic AGW.

John Connor can comfort himself all he wants from his interpretation of what happened at Warsaw. But the simple truth is the can has been kicked down the road yet again and will be again in 2015.

As long as observed data does not match human generated predictions, a global concensus will never occur. And it is people like John Connor with their chicken little view of climate change that will be to blame.

Once again, pragmatism and rationallity have won the day in Warsaw in some small part to Australias stand on this matter.

Anicol:

25 Nov 2013 6:41:16pm

No warming in the last 15 years is garbage trotted out by those who cant be bothered researching their arguments.

In 1998 there was an extreme peek in temperature and this is why it would appear there has been no increase in the trend over 15 years, looking at the graph over a longer period you see clearly there is an upward trend and 1998 was an unusually warm year, at the time it was the hottest year on record but now it is the 4th hottest year, 2012 2nd hottest and 2013 the hottest on record.

Anyone who is interested in the truth about this should have a good look at the data.

Its amazing how people will bend the truth to counter those crazy exaggerating warmest

berational:

25 Nov 2013 10:38:23pm

Marko; the IPCC are admitting that land temperature rises have slowed. They have not admitted that the world has stopped warming (or the warming slowed). The report (if you care to read it) also stated that computer models are not designed to predict when anomalies like this will happen. Its not the purpose of the models to do so. You seem to suggest that the science is dependent on models alone, without recognising that climate science uses many different avenues of research, of which computer modelling is but one.

Mycal:

25 Nov 2013 7:18:15pm

"1) All of the major global temperature records show no statistically signifcant warming in 15 years. One sattelite based temperature record (RSS) shows 17 years without warming. The IPCC in their recent report acknowledged this phenomenon"

Not true Marko, the IPCC report states that the rise in average global surface temperatures (note that there has been one) is not statistically significant. Averages don't measure extremes and it doesn't assume that there aren't heat sinks at work. Like the warming of oceans (latest reports indicate that the oceans are hotter now than at any time in 10,000 years, that warming goes down to 900 metres and the greatest warming has occurred in the last 60 years).

"(2) Despite all predictions that we would lose the arctic ice cap, we have come no where near this prediction. In fact recent evidence indicates that the arctic ice cover has increased this season above the 34 year average."This is simply not true, 34 years ago therewasn't a North West Passage, now there is. 34 years ago the duration of the ice sheet was signifcantly longer than it is now.

A lot of the CO2 is going into the ocean (particularly the Great Southern Oceans which is not some what strange as it isn't near a major source of CO2) with the result that they are increasingly acidic (eat your shellfish now).

Finally the problem is that most of the predictions are coming true, your problem is that you don't want to or can't admit to it. BTW it is not rational or pragmatic to ignore science, in any sphere of endeavour.

Marko:

So Mycal, what does "not statistically significant" mean to you then? Whether it's going down or up it still means nothing.

As for ocean temperature the world wide Argo buoys show no significant warming from 0-2000 metres over the past 10 years. Do a google search and find out.

Once again, do a google search for north west passage and the HMS Investigator. Back in 1853 it navigated through the passage. This was also achieved in the 1940's by the St.Roch.

As for CO2 being absorbed by a "warming ocean" I suggest you look up Henry's Law in relation to temperature and solubility of gas in liquid. Better still, leave a bottle of soda water in the hot sun for a while and see if you can open it without spilling any. Try the same experiment with a bottle of chilled soda water. Get the picture.

Despite what you say I believe I am being rational and pragmatic and I certainly am not ignoring the science or the facts for that matter.

Can I suggest that you actively search for alternative perspectives or views. You seem to have fallen in to the trap of confirmation bias. As I have said many times, the opposite of scepticism is gullibility.

Raskul:

25 Nov 2013 3:53:04pm

Before the election Abbott worked hard to suggest that Labor was pushing Australia to be way ahead of the international pack by proposing draconian climate change policies that would disadvantage Australian industry compared to overseas competitors.

Now the reality becomes obvious. Under Abbott Australia will be at the back of the pack while other nations reorient their economies to low carbon technologies leaving us with outdated factories and industrial processes.

Billy Bob Hall:

25 Nov 2013 6:18:25pm

Yes. I'm glad too. To send someone 'high ranking' might have inadvertently sent the wrong message that we were still complicit in this nonsense and fraud.Global warming is over.Time to go onto worrying about other far more important things.

Alpo:

25 Nov 2013 8:09:38pm

"nonsense and fraud. Global warming is over."... I think that you somehow have convinced yourself that the more you repeat something, the more likely it is that it may become true.... Oh well, some people never grow out of their child self.... Keep trying, Billy, keep trying.

rusty cairns:

25 Nov 2013 7:24:48pm

The implications of withdrawing our support to try and restrict building on the occupied territories are dangerous.We have had an ambassador withdrawn.What will be next for Australia ?Sanctions placed on us to make us act on reducing GHG's perhaps? Our sABBOTTage led government is more than just an embarrassment, it's looking like being a threat to our safety?

reaver:

25 Nov 2013 8:40:13pm

"This is another reversal of policy without our (the public's) knowledge."You weren't paying much attention during the lead up to the recent election, were you, Losimpson? This is exactly the kind of thing that was promised by the coalition.

Peter Abbott:

25 Nov 2013 3:58:36pm

One of my greatest regrets in life is I didn't get on the climate change gravy train. It just keeps chugging along making no decisions about anything and having conventions in some of the worlds best locations. Y2K was nothing on these guys and its going to get worse before it gets better.

Reinhard:

peter abbott:

Billy Bob Hall:

25 Nov 2013 6:21:30pm

But if you did get on that train Peter, could you now live with yourself and the unbearable shame ?Better to be staunchly independent (and right). History will smile upon the stance and forthrightness of worthy men such as yourself. I for one thank you.

Science-Lover:

25 Nov 2013 4:05:08pm

Of course Australia didn't send any government ministers there, and instructed the delegates to be obstructive.What else do you think that TAbbott would do when he believes Climate Change and the carbon tax were socialist plots? (this was from an ABC report detailing his comments to Tasmanian Liberals).

Of course, this Opinion Post will being out all the deluded climate change deniers, who also seem to believe that it's a socialist plot for world government.

They can't believe the science because it will ruin their world view that keeps their collective heads in the sand, or when they stick their collective fingers in their ears and shout la la la la la, etc., whenever anyone shows them scientific evidence.

Charles:

25 Nov 2013 8:02:38pm

There is only thing that is truly consistent with the AGW catastrophists, and that is it is not science they are spouting, it is religion. All that matters in this debate is that the True Believers in AGW are exhorted to keep the 'faith'.

gbe:

26 Nov 2013 12:17:40am

Of course global warming this never happened a 100 million years ago did it or was there really an Ice age or did the dinosaurs produce too much methane and choke to death. We need more research to save the planet.

rudy:

Helvi:

25 Nov 2013 6:36:28pm

As Keating said, this really is the ass end of world...

Abbott is doing his very best to ruin this country; why is he so hell-bent taking us backwards, Oz is a fairly young country, where is its vitality , it's willingness to be progressive,to care about education, climate change,about fair go for all its citizens...

reaver:

25 Nov 2013 8:43:15pm

Criminals commit crimes by breaking laws, rudy. What laws have these "Climate Criminals" broken or is it just the usual whine from the left that states that doing anything the left dislikes is a crime?

old67:

Alpo:

25 Nov 2013 8:17:43pm

Is Abbott going to lead them into environmental-battle riding a white horse?.... They should march towards the hills, shovels in hand, to the tune of a band of bagpipers... Oh my, what a vision, what a spectacle, the best of our youth led by our supreme commander advancing unafraid to their meeting with destiny!!!.... The Battlelines dream finally fulfilled....

Reinhard:

26 Nov 2013 10:31:37am

"Never before have we seen the extent of damage and destruction and wide-scale fire activity at this time of the year," Current NSW RFS Commissioner Shane Fitzsimmons.

"It's not the worst, but it is the earliest. We have never had this in October. This is a feature of slowly evolving climate. We have always had fires, but not of this nature, and not at this time of year, and not accompanied by the record-breaking heat we've had."Former NSW RFS commissioner Phil Koperberg.

Snarkus:

25 Nov 2013 4:38:56pm

All eyes on Aus ? Odd, when Australia only gets into news overseas is due to a significant event. Olympics, the odd big bushfire. No country takes any notice of Australia except as a base for spooks or as the West Island. Strange that academic or single issue focussed groups speak as if anyone notices we are significant on world stage.

Glamorpig:

reaver:

25 Nov 2013 8:50:06pm

We're not the highest per capita emitters on the planet and we never have been, Glamorpig. You're thinking of Qatar. Australia doesn't even make the top 5 (Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, the Netherlands and Luxembourg).

Tator:

25 Nov 2013 9:08:21pm

The earth doesn't care if the CO2 emissions are made by 3 Chinese, 10 Indians or one Australian. It is the gross total emissions that count if CO2 is the real culprit. Considering that in the four years between 2008 and 2012, China has emitted more than Australia has in 100 years, (using 2012 approximates for our emission levels - you could probably argue 150 years as Australia in the early 1900's was a small country with little industry and only really industrialized during WW2 and after.)

AGB:

25 Nov 2013 4:40:08pm

"Making things more lively were questions on performance of developed country commitments to facilitate public and private investment flows of at least $100 billion a year by 2020, as well as other substantial climate financing earlier."

In the past, the developing world has always had a legitimate complaint: Since the Industrial Revolution, a Western world problem (e.g. carbon emissions) disproportionately impacts the developing world . Since the developing world has shared little in the benefits of the Industrial Revolution, so the argument goes, surely the developed world should pay for the ravages of climate change.

Problem is, not only is the developing world now responsible for 50% of current global carbon emissions, but very soon they will have contributed 50% of all global emissions since the Industrial Revolution.

An inconvenient truth for those hoping for additional transfers of wealth from the West to the East.

NotMyName:

25 Nov 2013 4:42:26pm

How could P.M. Abbott send a minister if there is no minister for climate change, there is no need for a minister of climate change if you do not believe in climate change, or if your a new government that spent the past three years in opposition getting elected on a platform of dump the carbon tax, and replace it with taxpayer funded handouts to polluters. This government is consistence in its aim of making itself such a small target so it doesn't have to answer question, moves/removes portfolios so no one is sure who to question, and will not give out information that doesn't show its self in a positive light. Thankfully they didn't send Julia Bishop, she has done enough damage as F.M, or Pyne, he'd have reduced Australia's contribution to school yard power play, Hockey could have shouted louder to get his point across, and stormed off hurling abuse and insults over his shoulder. Or they could take the gag off our soon to be P.M. Malcolm Turnbull, he sees through the mendacity of the Liberal parties present stance on climate change.

whogoesthere:

25 Nov 2013 4:51:15pm

Abbott and co clearly think climate change is a load of bunkum, yet we have the magical 'direct action plan'. He should have the courage of his convictions, tell the truth, and scrap it to help our 'budget emergency'.

By the way what is the diract action plan ?. It is taking money (from tax) to be used to do something (reduce emmissions). So it's a carbon reducing tax !.

Now Rudd and Gillard have gone into the sunset when will Alan Jones and friends start attacking Abbott for being an 'alarmist' as he keeps saying he believes in AGW. He couldn't be lying surely.

Bodin:

25 Nov 2013 4:53:09pm

How many of the companies seeking assistance subsidise fuel for cooking and transport as part of their social support. How are they going to reduce their subsidies for this?

It is important that Australia participates in this process but that the impact of diverted aid funds, agricultural and social policies, ideologically driven economic misadventures and unwillingness to address internal social and demographic issues in less developed countries have had. The scepticism of the general public in the countries being asked to fund these investments is an issue to be overcome. Clearly the internal bureaucracies of the donors, the UN and NGO multinationals will consume some 10 to 15 % (conferences and plethora of think tanks and institutes excluded), the industry of climate change feeding preferred solutions 15%, graft 15% leaving about one half effectively being spent.Scrap the conferences , scrap all the panels and put $20bn aside to reward the best 10 industrial scale ideas that work and perhaps a better result will occur.It is in the self interest of the conference participants for the funding of their existence to continue, no result will be forthcoming until; there is no benefit to the industry to continue and evolving set of demands.

whatif:

25 Nov 2013 4:53:11pm

it is a shame that we have people who cant see past their own pride and pigheadedness when it comes to climate change, Australia took a step under Gillard and it was a huge step but one in the right direction, now we have the uneducated wanting to get rid of it, the world will watch and condemn us as abbott tries to tear down the small inroad to a cleaner future

Charles:

25 Nov 2013 5:02:45pm

All I can say is after reading this article by John Connor is that I will be forever grateful that the Australian population voted to remove the ALP as they would have signed us up for this 'loss and damage' fund in an instant.

Of course it is important to note that neither the ALP with its well recognised lack of understanding of the consequences, along with a similar view by John Connor, realises that it throws the Australian tax-payer under a bus every time they chase these hare-brained ideas.

If this fund ever gets going can you imagine any climatic event NOT being due to AGW, which means that we would be paying money every time anything happened to anyone anywhere. It would be like the G77 countries taking out an insurance policy they could draw on every time the weather caused damage to their country or people. The only difference is they wouldn't be paying any premiums. It is hard to conceive of an idea that is more open to corruption or abuse.

These sort of ideas feed the conspiracy arguments of those addicted to the idea of One World Governments and takeovers of nations by stealth, and these closet totalitarians should be resisted at every turn.

No wonder the idea of climate change is losing popularity so swiftly when you get these 'carpet-bagging' style articles being published all the time. The one good thing that has come from this is the realisation that any government that wants to make it so unnecessarily difficult for its people will now be removed, as the voters have finally realised what is really at stake here is their freedom, and their economic legacy to their successors.

I also think it is time we called an end to these pointless climate conferences as all they do is emit large amounts of CO2 to provide junkets to those who come up with some of the truly dumbest ideas in history. It is possibly something we can afford not to have.

tomtoot:

25 Nov 2013 8:42:16pm

Perhaps @ Charles you should first of all ask yourself why your LNP masters concede and condone the 5% reduction by 2020?You should do so before spouting your comments that imply the LNP are a bunch of liars and denialists?

Then perhaps ask yourself why are you so deluded to think that the LNP are only deluding the general public for your benefit?Surely they would delude the public for their own benifit and not just yours?

This is clearly not so?The LNP are committing BILLIONS of TAX PAYERS money to address climate change - and you are suggesting that they are doing so to hudwink we AUSTRALIANS and the rest of the WORLD?

The LNP Direct Action PLan is after all committed to the 5% reduction by 2020 and has come under scrutiny worldwide because of the unsavory behest of Abbott and Co.,

Yet you persistently come on with your climate denial diatribe and bull dust comments - perhaps you should read the article before commenting on the comments?

Charles:

26 Nov 2013 9:25:33am

Bit fired up there Tomtoot, seeing something of your self in what I wrote perhaps. I note another thing you Leftists miss all the time which is that conservatives tend to use their own logic and ability to think critically, which is completely the opposite of your Leftward claque who constantly have to rely on somewhat else to quote to support your arguments as you know you can never work it out for yourselves.

Direct action for climate change is what the US have used successfully to reduce their CO2 emissions by almost double what we have here in Australia, and has relied on converting from coal to gas for energy. This has not only not destroyed their economy (unlike the dumb carbon tax used here) but has actually resulted in higher employment, restoration of manufacturing and general benefit to their economy (all of which has also not happened here).

While I am not the biggest fan of any government spending any money on CO2 reduction, at least the LNP are promising not to waste as much as the previous ALP/Green government which is a blessed relief.

For your benefit, I do believe the climate changes, although I am quite confident it is all due to naturalk systems and has nothing at all to do wioth CO2 as there simply isn't enough of it to suggest that it could effect the climate in any way. This is an opportunity for you to work it out for yourself, do the mathematics and try and tell us how it could work

berational:

25 Nov 2013 10:55:29pm

100 billion a year seems a lot of money. Considering that the world subsidises the fossil fuel industry by more than 1 trillion a year it is not a lot and is only a small part of the costs of the damage done by the fossil industry. If only we have heeded the UN in 1990 and withdrawn all the subsidies then, we would be 23 trillion better off and the damage costs would now be less.

Charles:

26 Nov 2013 9:28:53am

They are not subsidies they are the cost of doing business. If we taxed everyone on their business inputs when trying to create wealth then we wouldn't create any wealth and you'd be running around in animal skins and living under a rock. Think for yourself, channeling Christine Milne is an exercise in self harm

berational:

26 Nov 2013 3:15:54pm

Charles: these subsidies are in addition to normal business expenses and tax claims. And why would we want to encourage wealth creation of a product that is going to damage us? That is "self harm", don't you think.

Sydney:

25 Nov 2013 5:04:41pm

On the question of the mandate: At the last election the LP/NP coalition received a mandate to form government. They were NOT given the power to overturn ANY legislation they had disagreed with in opposition! They can now pursue their own legislative agenda (if they have the necessary numbers), no more, no less. And such had been the case after all elections in my memory!(Even that well-known example of Howard and Costello wanting to introduce the GST is not admissible: The discussions about the need for a GST had been going on for years, in a bi-partisan way. The majority of the community had finally accepted the fact of a GST, in particular because ?as was promised, but never delivered upon in a comprehensive fashion- a number of other so-called ?inefficient? taxes would be replaced; ANY party would have won if that had been the ONLY point of that election!)In this case, the last election, people did NOT vote for Abbott and the LP/NP coalition because they strongly believed one should axe the price on carbon and an ETS. They DID, however, vote against the then rabble of the ALP to get another shot at things, and wanted the party to sort themselves out in opposition. After all, their legislative agenda WAS commendable, including their climate change initiatives with the prospect of an ETS. For years the majority of people have believed in action on climate change, and have recently accepted that most economists think the LP/NP policy of Direct Action is crap.And YES ? private business, during the first year of the carbon pricing scheme, had made a start in greener and more sustainable energy production (albeit a small start, coming from a low base, but a START it was, anyway).And for the country not at least to have been represented by the minister at the recent climate talks in Warsaw, was disgraceful!

James from Bray Park:

25 Nov 2013 5:05:55pm

What a crock. Every time a politician starts on about climate change the same flawed, half-arguments are trotted out. "You can't argue with the science"...Yes, but 'scientists', are often found to be backing political claims, or just flat out lying for parochial gain. Ask the people whose lives were damaged by Thalidomide if they can argue with 'the science'. "It is the only responsible way to fight climate change" say the ECONOMIC experts.

There is also a 'science' which suggests that climate change might be the result of the polar shift of the Earth's magnetic field, which is enabling solar winds to strip properties from our atmosphere in the same way that the atmospheres of Venus and Mars, which don't have magnetic fields, were so radically changed.

The whole concept of carbon pricing is a con, designed specifically to line the pockets of the world bank. A blanket rip-off to make people pay someone for something they did not produce.

Alpo:

25 Nov 2013 8:23:36pm

James, the science of climate change must be one of the most closely scrutinised pieces of scientific knowledge ever produced by humans. The attacks have been relentless and very well cashed up. Yet, the major conclusions still stand and the overall scenario is one that should concern us all. We cannot modify the Sun and the amount of energy it radiates to our planet for instance, but we can act on the effects our industrial activities are having on global warming.

James from Bray Park:

25 Nov 2013 11:06:07pm

Alpo, I totally agree that we need to control our behavior, whether 'the science' can prove it of not. I just get my undies bunched up about a rip-off that will do nothing at all to fix the problem. The whole concept exists to line the same grubby pocket that were stuffed in the process of increasing carbon pollution. I don't doubt we have a carbon problem, but arguments by the fat cats that the further stuffing of their pockets will fix things are simply contemptible.

If it is so important that we do something, why not start with the closing down of our coal industry? Yes it would hurt, but at what stage does money become too important to be tampered with for for the sake of the climate? Certainly well above what I will ever earn. Apparently big-money miners and their imported labour are too important to be brought to task though.

Your point about it being "the most scrutinised pieces of science knowledge" doesn't work for me either. It prompts the question, "By whom?" The answer is of course 'interested parties'. An immediate global cessation of the use of oil and coal would be a good start if the problems was really to be addressed, but that would be really unpopular with bankers, miners and oil producers, so lets just slug the plebs, again and again and again.

Alpo:

26 Nov 2013 8:06:51am

James, I share with you the sentiment that big industrial polluters shouldn't be rewarded (which is what Abbott is planning to do). But the world is faced with a big dilemma: the long-term consequences of climate change if we do nothing vs. the short- and medium-consequences for the world economy if we do too much, too quickly, such as your suggested: "why not start with the closing down of our coal industry?". The coal industry will be eventually phased out, but it is very unlikely to happen overnight, until alternative sources of energy replace it and coal-exporting countries shift their sources of revenues to something else. Unfortunately, the relative speed of these changes will depend on the seriousness of climate change over time. It is clear that hoping for a big consensus of enlightened minds for the benefit of the whole humanity will just not do at the moment. We are too selfish, greedy and short-sighted....

genfie:

26 Nov 2013 8:36:59am

There's also a theory that "climate change" is caused by our reptoid overlords to create an environment so they can stop shape shifting into our world leaders but can finally walk on the surface of our planet in their true forms.

John51:

25 Nov 2013 5:08:30pm

All it has done is demonstrated to the rest of the world what most of us in this country knew about this conservative LNP government. This lot don't believe in the science on climate change and global warming. Their parties are full of those who deny the science and the need to act.

So I think it can now be said with certainty that their so called 'Direct Action' plan will be that in name only, with little if any substance attached to it. I think it is pretty certain they won't get the repeal of labor's scheme through before next July. And even though they may replace labor's carbon tax/market mechanism with their direct action policy, it will have little money attached to it.

Reaching 25%, It will be a miracle if we were to even attain a 5% reduction from their direct action plan. In fact I would suggest that what ever reductions, if any that we get will likely come from other reasons. It will be either be from a downturn in the economy and or from business and people having the sense to reduce their own energy use.

There is an cost advantage for business to reduce energy use and or to increase energy efficiency outcomes. But they usually need economic and or policy drivers to help push those changes. Meanwhile this government is taking us in the wrong direction to achieve such outcomes.

the working man:

25 Nov 2013 5:10:25pm

John, it is a sad reflection on the mushrooms that vote which allowsAbbott to govern for the sake of politics and the wishes of the big endof town. There is no greater example of this than climate change anda ETS to reduce co2 emissions. Today's poll reflects that the mushroomswere feed so much bulls..t by Murdoch and the shock jocks that they votedin a lemon. You can't take it back and get a refund so we now have to putup with this mob. We had a fine lady that implemented many long term reforms but was torn down by the boy's club.

jack:

25 Nov 2013 5:12:55pm

Putting aside the climate change debate, Abbott can't back down on his policy to repeal the Carbon tax/price policy of Labor. He will also find it sticky going if he kowtows to international demands on this issue. He has little or no wriggle room with the voters, no room with those who backed his campaign. He and his front bench have staked an entire election cycle on the notion that people have turned away from mitigation, and now he finds himself facing 175 countries who have shown this past week that they are willing to work collectively to mitigate any adverse effects of a changing climate. Abbott must now become fluid and flexible on this issue, those who say we need do nothing, now have to face the reality that the rest of the World is doing something, and we must be involved or left behind. This has now become a great challenge for mr Abbott and his fledgling government, and it will be interesting to see how they deal with the new paradigm.

berational:

25 Nov 2013 11:08:22pm

bobs...; you might think there is a question about CC being manmade but the science is quite clear that human activity is by far the greatest contributor. We have added 1,400 billion tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere and you would have to be insane to think that would not have an impact.

Climate HAS changed before and it has not been a pleasant experience for life on this planet. That is why the informed are so concerned. We can find substitutes. We did for CFCs and for asbestos etc.

Mycal:

"Instructed by Canberra, diplomats took difficult, if not obstructive, positions in the negotiations. It was not missed by anyone that Australia sent a diplomat rather than a minister."

Why do you sound surprised? I am not privy to the brief given to our representatives but it sounds like they followed it to the letter. Why didn't they just shut up and vote without making an arse of themselves and us?

"These actions pushed Australia to - or beyond - the margins of climate credibility and global citizenship, attracting direct or thinly veiled criticism from China to South Africa, and Pacific islands to Europe"

Yes, and according to Bolt, in todays Tele (I was reading the sports pages, honest!) we can expect more of the same. It's funny but I never imagined that having "adults in charge" could actually be so childish. But hey we showed the world didn't we?!

Graham:

Tasha:

25 Nov 2013 5:33:56pm

Never knew there is a Climate Change Conference held by UN, and its role altogether with finance, resource, and economics. Thank you for the clear info, John. I hope it works out really well with fair negotiations.

John Coochey :

25 Nov 2013 5:42:45pm

Another article full of wishful thinking by "A change of Government denier". Didn't mention that about a third of countries did not attend or did not send high level represenantation. The money grab by LDC's was also unsuccessful.

Billy Bob Hall:

Reinhard:

25 Nov 2013 6:00:36pm

There was a time we were seen as a world leading and visionary nation, but sadly that all changed on 7th September. Now it seems the world is finally taking the lead set by the Gillard govt, and this govt has decided to turn the clock back to 1950...Smokestack Tony says "Light em if you got em'.. cough.. wheeze...

havasay:

Greg:

25 Nov 2013 6:16:57pm

Not surprisingly the scientifically challenged have come out of their cave in a bunch this time -- but anyone used to the Drum will recognise the usual suspects. I guess even when all the grass is gone there will still be astroturf.

prison:

25 Nov 2013 8:02:58pm

My theory is that they are all part of the same sceptic group such as the people from the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) whos science advisor is none other than our aussie connection, Bob Carter. It was probably Bob who pointed their organisation towards this ABC opinion peice.

When you look at their recent flyer, they have links to 800 significant media influences since they were founded. essentially, they get online to influence public opinion or as they say "Using mass media to promote our messages". Note that 57 of them are from australia. These guys work in the industry - they are engineers and just smart enough to be dangerous but not smart enough to prevent us finding out the truth.

Now for a good laugh:"To sway public, media and eventually government opinion, groups presenting a realistic perspective of climate change and energy must be seen as ?honest brokers? relatively free from vested political and commercial interest"

This is what these people do. They are open about it. They are "relatively" free from oil industry funding and pretend they are independant. They take over these comment peices and flood them with comments to make it appear that Many People share their views. It is corrupt and wrong in my opinion.

Browse through their flyer and webpage for more disturbing information

James Murphy:

Welcome to the internet, anyone (or any group) can have a say. What's your point exactly?

Stupid people will believe what they want to believe, if it seems credible, that's not going to change in a hurry.

A lot of organisations use mass media to promote their message... in fact, I am pretty sure there may well be a whole industry devoted to helping oragnisations doing just that, if my (admittedly limited) understanding of the advertising industry is anything to go by.

Taswegian:

26 Nov 2013 6:22:05am

It is interesting that for all the denialists' claims of conspiracy and fraud, the only concerted efforts to distort climate science and mislead public perception come from the denialist camp, which happens to be well funded by fossil fuel companies. Even Bob Carter gets paid a retainer by denialist 'thinktanks'.

If the interests behind these astroturfing efforts wanted value for money, you'd think they'd look for groups that aren't so easily shown to be shills and sock puppets.

It is hilarious how quickly the denialistas got hold of this article - talking about another loss of face for Australia from Abott's diplomatic ineptitude - and started with their tried, tested and flawed cut and paste comments.

Billy Bob Hall:

tomtoot:

25 Nov 2013 6:17:50pm

@JohnConnor:- It has always been my opinion that Climate Change, Global warming - call it what you will - required a Global response?

In that light, and the UN stance in respect of, a slow march towards an end result will be enforced. However, with an LNP government reneging on an ETS and endeavouring to scrap the carbon pricing (to be replaced by Direct Action Plan of dubious commitment ) I see Australia on a path to self destruction unless it conforms to Global requirements.

There is little doubt that trade embargo's will be enforced for none compliance in the future?I'm sure some Australian businesses realise this as inevitable?

Reinhard:

25 Nov 2013 6:24:08pm

There was a time we were seen as a world leading and visionary nation, but sadly that all changed on 7th September. Now it seems the world is finally taking the lead set by the Gillard govt, and this govt has decided to turn the clock back to 1950...Smokestack Tony says "Light em if you got em'.. cough.. wheeze...

James Murphy:

25 Nov 2013 10:47:42pm

We've been going backwards for decades. We used to be world leaders in a lot of scientific areas, but now, we're just "also rans", while the general public seem more concerned about the performances of barely literate sports stars and the vacuous inanities who are so eager to debase themselves by appearing on 'reality television' shows.

This can be blamed on both Labor and Liberal governments, at least, it can if one is open minded enough to accept that both Labor and Liberal are far from perfect.

Reinhard:

26 Nov 2013 10:19:06am

James, what a load of nonsense, it was the Labor party that formed the Climate Commission in 2011, it is the Liebral Party shut off funding, closed the the Science Ministry and is now taking the axe to the CSIRO...

de Brere:

25 Nov 2013 6:31:59pm

It is interesting that the world's governments are starting to back off here. Perhaps, just perhaps, the utter non-science nonsense that passes itself off as climate science has done its dash. In a sense it is not surprising, given that the most recent advance in this field; and the primary one that underwrites the AGW theory, is Arrhenius' observations that CO2 was a greenhouse gas; a conclusion that is now more than a century old. As to any verified quantification of how the observed rise in CO2 is actually affecting surface T, there is nothing beyond Arrhenius; ie that it will go up by some unquantified amount.

But if anyone can let me know of any verified science that has accurately either quantified that rise, or even tied any observed weather/climate changes to that via cause and effect, that is more modern than that, I would seriously love to hear it.

Glamorpig:

25 Nov 2013 7:41:30pm

Try NASA, the Smithsonian, National Geographic, or any credible scientific source. Why do deniers ignore the largest and most credible scientific agencies? NASA - "On Earth, human activities are changing the natural greenhouse. Over the last century the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). This happens because the coal or oil burning process combines carbon with oxygen in the air to make CO2. To a lesser extent, the clearing of land for agriculture, industry, and other human activities have increased concentrations of greenhouse gases."

de Brere:

25 Nov 2013 9:47:14pm

That's data, and not disputed. However, data are not science. Greenhouse gasses are going up. So it will get warmer, but the point is by how much. The claim by the consensus that the observed warming is due to these GHGs is not based on science, but on the assumption that nothing else significant is happening. The fact that this assumption is rubbish is demonstrated by the fact that the relationship between the rate of GHG rise and the rate of T rise is all over the place. For example this rate varies by 20 fold for the same rate of GHG rise. If the effect of gravity varied by that much, then the world high jump record would be about 2 m in some places, and something over 10 stories in others.

Alpo:

26 Nov 2013 8:17:33am

"However, data are not science."... Oh dear me, data collected scientifically are part of the scientific activity, they are not magic."but on the assumption that nothing else significant is happening."... TOTALLY FALSE! All the major known sources of warming are considered, measured and added to current models of climate change! "the rate of GHG rise and the rate of T rise is all over the place."... I explained this to you and others so many times that I just don't know what to think of your capacity to comprehend. The greenhouse effect requires two basic things: a) greenhouse gases, such as CO2, which have been increasing over time due to industrial pollution, and b) solar radiation, which fluctuates periodically. When energy irradiated from the Sun decreases due to the star's internal dynamics, then its effect on the earth's surface temperature also decreases. In this case, for the past 10 years or so we have had a slow down in the rate of temperature increase, at least because the Sun has gone through a prologued period of low irradiated energy.

de Brere:

26 Nov 2013 10:30:36am

Alpo

Data by themselves are just that; data. They prove nothing. Your noted fact that they are part of the scientific process does not change that. As such, quoting data that show the existence of climate changes does not scientifically prove anything other than there is SOME cause for that change.

On your claim that my statement on the consensus assumption that nothing else significant is happening being totally false, I might have expressed it a bit clumsily, but the key word is significant. I should have also noted that they have estimated the impact of other factors and tried to account for them in the models, but the fact remains that their assumption is that firstly, they have adequately and accurately accounted for all these other factors and secondly after all of these other factors are so accounted, the cause of remaining change is anthropogenic GHGs. However, the point remains that if this were the case, then the models would be very accurate. They aren't.

On your variations in solar energy, maybe you haven't read my responses or something, but despite your belief to the contrary, they certainly do not explain the inaccuracy of model predictions. The fact is that these variations are very small (~+/- 0.5w/1360 at the top of the atmosphere) and far too small to explain (for example) the recent slowdown in warming.

As I also noted, but which while you were busy reflecting on my capacity to comprehend, apparently escaped you, there is a 20 fold variation in rate of change across the surface of the earth. According to you, this variation is caused by variation in solar output. Are you really able to explain this in terms of variation in solar output? Is it that there is a different sun operating over different points of the planet or something? I thought we lived under the same sun.

Taswegian:

25 Nov 2013 8:42:09pm

You'd know all about non-science nonsense, wouldn't you now.

"But if anyone can let me know of any verified science that has accurately either quantified that rise" I'd point you to the IPCC forecasts - we are bang on their envelope of warming from their earliest models. That's pretty good verified science!

de Brere:

26 Nov 2013 10:33:18am

Perhaps tassy, you had better check the most recent changes. They are so close to being outside of the 95% confidence intervals from the original models that the models you claim to be validated have in fact been totally revamped.

berational:

25 Nov 2013 11:18:58pm

de Brere; BTW he didn't observe that CO2 was a greenhouse gas. That was done by Tyndell 35 years earlier. Hanson has a good explanation of CO2 sensitivity in his book (and I think on his website). I'm sure you would not let your bias get in the way of analysing the facts he quotes.

berational:

de Brere: CO2 may be weak compared to say methane. It was Arrhenius that recognised that CO2 controlled the temperature, not H2O (which responds to the temp changes) or other GHGs.

Not exactly sure what your 20 fold variation is about but it could have something to do with the measurement of land temps which are only a measure of where 3% of the heat is going so is prone to wild variations of around that magnitude.

Dr Who:

26 Nov 2013 12:48:05am

"As to any verified quantification of how the observed rise in CO2 is actually affecting surface T, there is nothing beyond Arrhenius;..."Garbage. There are countless papers trying to quantify the effects, estimate the non-anthropogenic influences etc. The variables are so complex that much of the more recent work has been done on supercomputers See Nature Climate Change, 2012, pg 248 for a review, as well as the references cited within.

de Brere:

"Garbage. There are countless papers TRYING to quantify the effects..." (My emphasis)

Exactly. And they have been so successful that even the supercomputer models haven't been able to accurately predict what is happening; or explain what has happened for that matter.

As I noted, there is a 20 fold variation in rate of T change across the surface of the earth for the same GHG rise, and that variation is certainly NOT random. It is actually exponentially related to distance from the South Pole!!! (If you don't believe me, go to the NASA GISS web site and do the global maps) Now the day that the consensus can explain that is the day that the theory will begin to become scientifically acceptable from my perspective. Indeed, if they can explain that, then I suspect they will then have a solid understanding and explanation of what is really happening. Until then, I for one won't be fooled into believing a consensus view that only exists because they cannot explain this, among many other things, in a scientifically valid way; and have to resort to this non-science nonsense that passes for climate science.

de Brere:

"Garbage. There are countless papers TRYING to quantify the effects..." (My emphasis)

Exactly. And they have been so successful that even the supercomputer models haven't been able to accurately predict what is happening; or explain what has happened for that matter.

As I noted, there is a 20 fold variation in rate of T change across the surface of the earth for the same GHG rise, and that variation is certainly NOT random. It is actually exponentially related to distance from the South Pole!!! (If you don't believe me, go to the NASA GISS web site and do the global maps) Now the day that the consensus can explain that is the day that the theory will begin to become scientifically acceptable from my perspective. Indeed, if they can explain that, then I suspect they will then have a solid understanding and explanation of what is really happening. Until then, I for one won't be fooled into believing a consensus view that only exists because they cannot explain this, among many other things, in a scientifically valid way; and have to resort to this non-science nonsense that passes for climate science.

Dr Who:

26 Nov 2013 3:10:25pm

You sure like the sound of your own voice de Brere, repeating your nonsense twice.

"And they have been so successful that even the supercomputer models haven't been able to accurately predict what is happening..."I don't think anyone's been able to predict supernovae yet either. Doesn't mean they don't happen.

As to why polar regions, in particular the North Pole, are heating faster than others - partly to do with the statistical nature of entropy (and how that affects the behavior of concentration and temperature gradients), partly to do with ocean and wind currents, which tend to be affected by land masses and Earth's rotation (look up "roaring forties" and "screaming sixties", and try to see if you can work out the implications for convection between the south pole and tropical regions). It really isn't that hard to comprehend, and I have tried to explain it to you - but then, it does require a certain command of science to understand.

Lisa Meredith:

26 Nov 2013 9:08:34am

Dear de Brere,

You ask: "But if anyone can let me know of any verified science that has accurately either quantified that rise, or even tied any observed weather/climate changes to that via cause and effect, that is more modern than that, I would seriously love to hear it."

Answer: It is all about understanding the mechanism of the greenhouse effect itself. This is described by the science that contributes to our understanding of the structure of atoms and molecules; how they interact with other electrons and photons; how photons can be absorbed and emitted by atoms and molecules; and finally, how energy can be changed from energy of radiation to energy of motion, to gravitational energy, to the latent heat of fusion of water, and so on.

(I suspect you don?t believe that energy of radiation can be turned into energy of motion (kinetic energy) and back again, so I ask you: what happens to it? Where does it go? The first thermodynamic law explains how energy can be changed from one form to another, so why is the greenhouse effect an exception to that law?)

Examples of the phenomenon include:- The surface temperatures of all planets and moons in our Solar System with an atmosphere;- The technology of microwave ovens;- The scientific understanding of bioluminescence, phosphorescence, etc;- The use of the scientific understanding of the absorption/emission spectra of all elements in the Periodic Table to identify the chemistry of: atmospheres of stars including our own, foods purchased in supermarkets, forensic evidence, to name a few examples.

de Brere:

26 Nov 2013 11:12:27am

Lisa

The IR energy gets converted to vibrational energy within the CO2 molecule. That higher energy vibrational state then "decays" back to a lower energy vibrational state with the emission of an IR photon with the same energy of the photon that kicked it up to the higher state in the first place. There are no intermediate "steps" that could result in imparting of kinetic energy to other molecules.

At a coarse 'example" of something like this in action, you lift a pile driver. It has a higher gravitational potential energy that is imparted from the lifting energy it took to get it there. The fact that there is air around the driver and that the driver has a higher potential energy doesn't mean that the air gets hotter around the driver! The same for a CO2 molecule. The fact that the molecule has absorbed an IR photon to get to a higher energy state does not mean that it can then impart that energy as kinetic energy to the surrounding gas molecules.

Dr Who:

26 Nov 2013 3:18:22pm

What a load of garbage from de Brere. He really has outdone himself this time.

At a molecular level, heat is vibrational energy. There is no reason why a high-energy CO2 level cannot collide with another gas molecule and impart some of that energy during that collision. Your gravitational potential analogy is BS; the air around a hot object will, via collisions, become hotter than the air around a cold object (although in practice this can be difficult to measure on localised scales owing to rapid convection rates - again, comes down to entropy and statistical thermodynamics).

prison:

25 Nov 2013 6:36:46pm

what I find interesting that for a supposedly left-leaning news forum that there are so many comments from deniers ALREADY (6-7 in a row at one point).

Considering that the majority of Australians accept the science and want action on climate change and the dispute was supposedly only about implementation (Tax or direct action), the large number of people pushing an anti-scientific agenda on here already seems disproportionate. Are you all based in Australia?

Do we have an organised Climate sceptic group trying to flood any of these climate discussions to influence public opinion?

I'm very dissapointed at Australias direction and i'm glad other countries are annoyed at our backtracking on this issue.

What annoys me more is that those who profit today from this will be long dead before their greed effects others.

tomtoot:

25 Nov 2013 7:13:37pm

I agree with you Prison - climate denialists are all to eager to try to confuse, deny or falsify facts for their own ends - sadly Australia as a country will not have such a luxury - we will be held to account by our Global neighbours on the action we take - or don't take?

Bob42:

john byatt:

25 Nov 2013 8:08:15pm

a few of the climate retards party are here

A new study by British and Canadian researchers shows that the global temperature rise of the past 15 years has been greatly underestimated. The reason is the data gaps in the weather station network, especially in the Arctic. If you fill these data gaps using satellite measurements, the warming trend is more than doubled in the widely used HadCRUT4 data, and the much-discussed ?warming pause? has virtually disappeared.

Greg:

25 Nov 2013 9:20:57pm

Just so. I'm always taken with the way the trogs carry on forever about the appalling burden of debt we are allegedly leaving for future generations, but don't turn a hair at the thought of the condition of the world those same generations will inherit.

Greg:

26 Nov 2013 7:44:24am

I would define a denialist -- in the context of climate change -- as one who prefers not to listen to the overwhelming evidence of science and of the overwhelming majority of scientists, and who cherry-picks data (e.g. the 15 year myth, based on an old spike) to fabricate a countercase. Another good phrase is Orestes and Conway's, "Merchants of Doubt".In this matter as in most others, some opinions are much more worth listening to than others. Imaginings are likely to be less reliable.

de Brere:

26 Nov 2013 1:44:36pm

Why listen to opinions? They are all worthless compared to what the science says. So is someone like me who points out that the opinions of the consensus aren't backed by science (if they were, then the scientists would quote that rather than give you their expert opinions) denialists too?

genfie:

26 Nov 2013 8:31:46am

A denialist is someone who simply denies the science. That's it. The reason they're call denialists rather than skeptics is because climate science is underpinned by the laws of physics. Excuse me for saying, but denying the basic laws of physics is not "skepticism". It's anti-scientific dogma.

Try saying you "just don't buy this gravity thing". How do you sound? Because when you say you "just don't buy this climate change thing", you're basically saying the same thing.

de Brere:

26 Nov 2013 1:53:18pm

To paraphrase you genfie, a denialist is then one who denies the laws of physics in favour of what they believe to be the case. That being the case, how would you describe those who, when the known laws of physics say their theory is wrong, simply invent some new theory or law or effect or excuse (all of which are unverified) to cover for the lack of matching? Under your definition, are not the consensus climate "scientists" also "denialists"?

genfie:

Reinhard likes facts:

26 Nov 2013 4:23:33pm

BillyBob that is merely your very sad and totally biased opinionHere are some actual , verifiable facts:The rate of atmospheric warming over the past 15 years (1998-2012) is +0.05 [-0.05 to +0.15] degrees C per decade. This period begins with a strong El Nino, and is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951-2012) of +0.12 [+0.08 to +0.14] degrees C per decade."[Source: AR5 WG1 Summary for Policy Makers (approved 27 Sep 2013)]

Rar:

25 Nov 2013 6:46:50pm

4 possibilities for humanity or as some call it 'australia'

1 we choose to ignore 'climate change' and keep our money, we were right hooray for us haha to those who fell for the scam2 we choose to ignore climate change and keep our money, we were wrong we slowly become extinct due to the ridiculous weather patterns and events3 we do something about it spend some money we were wrong someone duped us but hey we showed we cared4 we do something Bout it spend money it helps a bit or a lot and in the end worth it

James Murphy:

genfie:

26 Nov 2013 8:29:09am

Which is another way of saying the always pithy and spot on

"what if we create a better world for nothing?"

Whether climate change is real and anthropogenic, the changes we'd need to make to our technology and economy are only beneficial in the long term. And, if it is real, they're changes that are absolutely vital - not to the survival ultimately of the human race but to the survival of our society.

The problem is not that the world is going to end and we're all going to die. The problem is that we're *not*. We're looking at living in a 4 degree world with more than 1 billion climate refugees. Our institutions can't handle that.

Billy Bob Hall:

reaver:

25 Nov 2013 7:48:07pm

So broken, non-functioning and welfare dependent countries were wanting more welfare and came up with a way to try to guilt the functioning countries into opening our wallets. Hardly surprising. If it wasn't climate change then they would have come up with something else. The only surprising thing is that the functioning countries have finally decided to say no and not before time. Anyone thinking that our government is going to facilitate "public and private investment flows" (Investing in what, exactly? Investing, by very definition, involves a return or at least an anticipated return to the investor.) by April 2015 is likely to be very disappointed. I will not be one of those people. I can think of hundreds of better things to do with our money than to throw it down the bottomless foreign aid pit. I have no doubt that the government and their advisors will come up with their own similar list. As an aside given that we're always being told that Australia is especially vulnerable to climate change shouldn't we be one of the beneficiaries of this "loss and damage mechanism" designed to "address unmanageable climate impacts" in "vulnerable countries"?As for "bad behaviour" in climate change talks risking adverse consequences in trade talks, does anyone really think that the powerhouses of the 21st century like China and India are really going to give anything more than lip service to such a concept? Anyone who thinks that the expanding China and India are going to let such a concern effect their trade will also be very disappointed. I hope you're not relying on the appearance of Xie Zhenhua to prop up that theory. His influence hasn't been nearly the same since he was forced to resign from his former position as the Minister of State for the Environment Ministry in 2005 and is currently one of nine Vice Chairmen at the NDRC. I'd be much more impressed if the NDRC had sent Xu Shaoshi or Zhu Zhixin.

Taswegian:

25 Nov 2013 8:52:59pm

Hi Reaver, if you think that the imbalances in the world are due to "non-functioning and welfare dependent countries" vs (presumably) 'functioning and welfare giving countries;, I suggest you read Guns Germs and Steel, which lays out the history of technology, colonialism and economic growth.

The reality is that 90 companies are responsible for 63% of all carbon emissions ever, and they are overwhelmingly based in currently wealthy nations. It is therefore only fair that some of the profits that have been harvested from the fossil fuel industry be put towards reducing the damage it has caused and avoiding further damage.

China has capped coal use and is investing massively in renewables. Australia has done away with a cap on emissions and has done away with the most efficient and effective model for carbon abatement, only to replace it with payouts to whichever companies can present the most convincing consultant's report.

In terms of international behaviour, China has power, Australia has relationships. If Oz wears those down through poor and loutish behaviour, then it has nothing.

That's some pretty lazy and specious reasoning in your post Reaver. It almost looks like you're trying t cobble together anything you can to support your stance, regardless of whether or not it makes sense when you put it together.

reaver:

26 Nov 2013 10:23:14am

I have read 'Guns Germs and Steel', Taswegian, and have watched the TV series. It covered much, but didn't take into account politics and ignored any facts that didn't fit the theory. The fact is that if it wasn't for the political environment in the Chinese court during the European expansionist period we'd all be speaking Mandarin.I never stated or even implied that Australia doesn't have corrupt governments. If you're going to respond to my posts it would be nice if you responded to what's in them. Not only is it polite to do so, but it works better as well.Australia has an easy to get to, functionally endless supply of resources and the political and social stability to make the extraction worth investing in. When it comes to international trade no one cares about you if all you have is a friendly face. The Fijians are among the friendliest people on the planet, yet they don't have the terms of trade that Australia does simply because they don't have what we have.

Gordon:

26 Nov 2013 11:20:43am

Guns Germs and Steel is a fine book but please don't imagine it provides excuses for poverty created by poor government.

China has power because it has developed itself, and is making the best use of its massive population and resources, and is not allowing anyone to tell them what to do. It is bringing prosperity and happiness to more people faster than any hand-wringy social program ever imagined. The same place in the 19th and 20th C was a basket case due to the sclerotic Qing rulers, and then Mao. Same country, same resources, different leadership; they don't seem to have read Guns Germs & Steel either.

Australia on the other hand is being told to hide under a rock and apologise for our success, and to shovel money to mendicant irresponsible governments that say the right words. We have Tasmania, Taswegian, as an example of where that road leads. Unfortunately "relationships" will not make the rest of the world keep Australia as a pet, the way Australia keeps Tasmania.

TheNewBoilerMakerBill:

What a load of unmitigated rubbish; here are a few facts about Warsaw:

- Japan declared their emission targets were unsustainable and unilaterally increased them. Japan will also not sign any new Kyoto targets.

- Canada refused to support a massive climate compensation fund. Canada also withdrew from further Kyoto liabilities.

- The US admitted there was no chance that their Senate would agree to fund ?compensation? for past emissions.

- Carbon trading is dead: at least 10 major banks in London alone scaling back or closing their trading desks.

- Germany has said it will slash the green energy subsidies and is proceeding to open 10 new coal fired power stations.

- Russia has said it is NOT interested in emissions targets.

- Poland sacked its minister in charge of the Warsaw climate gabfest, and intends to push ahead as quickly as possible on developing shale gas resources.

- China led a block of 132 nations in a walkout from the Warsaw conference over "loss and damage? an ambit claim for legal liable for compensation when natural disasters strike developing poor nations.

prison:

26 Nov 2013 1:32:47pm

Whatever frustration you feel towards city people and their environmental conscience is nothing compared to the absolute disgust and loathing I feel for people who put their financial interests ahead of the environment and use this underlying factor of greed to disregard science.

For example JohnM earlier in the thread quoted 2 bits of info from a 163 page IPCC document to discredit AGW and what he said was not even in the document.

tunnelvision may be the problem. At the end of the tunnel is a giant $ sign

ram:

neil:

25 Nov 2013 9:44:26pm

Thankfully, Australia, USA and now UK have leaders that are prepared to stand up to the opportunistic UN's bullyboy tactics and say enough of this nonsense., We see through the deceit and we are not going to be fooled again.

The UN IPCC admitted their deceit in 2010

Ottmar Edenhofer: Co-chair of the UN IPCC Working Group III

?Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world?s resources will be negotiated?.

The UN has been attempting to con the industrialised world into giving them 0.7% of their GDP for decades, one scare campaign after another.

Reinhard:

26 Nov 2013 2:22:13pm

Allow me to provide the proper context of Edenhofer's comments , as he goes on to say"The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet ? and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 ? there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil."

Tator:

26 Nov 2013 3:15:48pm

Neil,its not purely the UN, it is a voting bloc called the Group of 77 which is a group of around 118 nations consisting of all the third world democracies, tinpot dictatorships, theological dictatorships, totalitarian governments and busted ar$e states who vote as a bloc in the General Assembly. Even back in the 70's this was a known bloc who was demanding .7% of the developed worlds GDP to be given to them as aid. Many of these nations are as resource rich as Australia but due to their inability to sustain a stable form of government or economy due to corruption and civil disorder, these countries tend to be poverty ridden at best or totally failed states like Somalia at worst.

ardy:

26 Nov 2013 10:35:36am

Walter: add population control and I give you the tick of approval. This heating rubbish has so many holes and political tricks that even early supporters are bailing out. James Lovelock being one of them.

Mervo:

25 Nov 2013 11:01:54pm

As an Australian, I am embarrassed. This weak government will leave so much to be done or re-done by the next Labor Government on the environment. History will condemn them. 19th century Conservatives only hold back progress for while and then are forgotten. Life on this earth is not all about money, and greed is not the best creedo.

Trekka:

26 Nov 2013 6:11:59am

Wow, talk about making a silk purse out of a pigs ear, the scam is grinding to an ignominious end, and none too soon, and there's little or nothing the green NGOs can do about it but suck it down and pretend they winning yet. Good luck with that.

Steve F:

26 Nov 2013 6:53:14am

Another climate change article....oh goody.

After being sucked in by a couple of hoaxes (the Y2K bug, that was gonna bring death and destruction to the world, and the AIDS scare, that was gonna affect everybody on the planet in some way), I'm no longer listening to anything I regard as a scare tactic, designed to make me cower, and wield to a higher authority - which is precisely what I reckon the climate change kerfuffle is about.

genfie:

26 Nov 2013 8:24:16am

You do know that AIDS is still an epidemic that kills millions, right? That entire coutnries have been decimated by the disease and it was only our proactive, coordinated and sicence-based approach to the virus that allowed our country to go almost completely unscathed?

The same proactive, coordinated and sicence-based approach that allowed the possible Y2K issue to be a complete non-event?

The same proactive, coordinated and sicence-based approach we're advocating to deal with this problem. See how successful it's been in the past?

Me of Wherever:

26 Nov 2013 8:01:46am

When Abbott first became the leader of the Liberals I told my wife and friends that if the Liberals won the election he with his moronic behaviour of Abbott he would destroy Australia's credibility among the leading world community, which he has started to do already. After the next election if we are lucky Labor will be able to put Australia back to where we were before Abbott started to destroy our standing in the world community.But unfortunately the people will suffer and may have to wear that for a long time to come.

ardy:

26 Nov 2013 9:55:14am

Me of disagree: I would rather have less world standing and a wealthy country, as opposed to an arse kissing, UN centric, minority focused, hand outs to drop kicks and big retirement, or brown paper bags for many Labor politicians.

The basis for this climate change fiasco is still a head scratcher as to how we swallowed it for so long. China allowed to double its output by 2020, empirical data not getting close to the badly programmed models, scientists bailing out of their support for this UN stitch up as the theory is not looking as convincing as it did 20 years ago.

Billy Bob Hall:

26 Nov 2013 1:43:28pm

Because of the suffering inflicted by 6 years of labor, we have to endure indeterminate economic suffering for the remainder of the 21st century. (at least).Give me this Prime Minister, with 'moronic' behavior and all any day.The country is finally once again being run by adults.As for labor winning the next election - yeah - whatever.

Grumpy:

ardy:

26 Nov 2013 8:26:22am

So if climate change is the huge risk that the John Connors of this world are claiming, why is China being allowed to double its output? This is total hypocrisy where the Western world sticks its head in the ground

Where is the green uproar, western government dismissal of these output figures? Of course it is hidden in the detail from you mugs.

So, far from cutting emissions, China?s ?commitment? boils down to nearly doubling their emissions by 2020.

It does not seem such a good deal after all, does it?

The Chinese, of course, have been totally transparent about all of this. But don?t believe the likes of John Connor [original name changed] when they try and keep these facts from you.

Just to put the China numbers into perspective, their current emissions are 27% of the global figure, so a doubling would add another quarter.

Such an increase would be one and a half times the combined emissions of the whole of the EU, Russia and the rest of Europe and Eurasia.

All of this rather begs the question ? if CO2 is really such a problem, why are not the UN, Greenpeace, UNFCC, Western politicians, activist scientists and all the other hangers on jumping up and down and demanding that China starts making real cuts now?

ardy:

26 Nov 2013 10:29:06am

Team Green and Team Red - You don't give a stuff about the impacts of CO2, you are only interested in crying about your grandchildren and how Australia should make a financial stand, whilst allowing China to double its CO2 output.

You do not have one ounce of credibility. Similar to the climate change scientists who are struggling to hold this poorest of scientific theories together in the face of empirical data.

dasher:

26 Nov 2013 8:49:03am

Comrades, did it ever occur to you that the world has spent trillions trying to stop climate change and still the emissions rise exponentially? Do you think it might be time to stop banging our head against a brick wall and try something new?......say, as Bjorn Lomberg suggests, stopping the waste on renewables and taxes and ramp up research. Well done Abbott to resist this pointless exercise.

Alpo:

26 Nov 2013 12:32:37pm

dasher, the world has spent nothing trying to stop the human contribution to global warming. Just nothing, thanks to the relentless opposition of denialists like you and Abbott, plus the plain and simple interests of oil producing and consuming countries, and also coal producing and consuming countries. The road is long and we haven't even moved beyond the first step. Let's do something asap, or we will be required to suddenly start running!

Jacob:

Trust Greg Hunt, John - he has the answers, it's just that the rest of us are not allowed to learn any of the details (as with other issues such as Acting-General Morrison's 'illegals').

The Abbott government in some ways is still behaving like an opposition: I guess ingrained negativity is hard to shake. And The Australian is still devoting a lot of stories to bagging Labor: shielding Abbott from scrutiny has become an ingrained habit for them too.

Still, I can't help thinking that the money spent on these talkfests (which seem to deliver little) would be better spent on R&D to make renewables truly competitive with fossil fuels. But I suppose we really need both.

Jean:

26 Nov 2013 10:17:04am

I'm just a confused sceptic. Can some-one please help me?

If catastrophic anthropogenic global warming caused the NSW bushfires, has it also caused the recent magnificent rainfall with continuous cool temperatures in the Blue Mountains that has changed the landscape in a matter of weeks as if the hand of God had swept a canvas with a green paintbrush?

Why does the BOM continually get their seasonal forecasts wrong? On October 23 2013 they stated "Drier Season more likely for North Eastern Australia." I suggest you take a look at the monthly rainfall map at the end on November to see how they are going. What chance do we have of forecasting what the climate will be at the end 2100 if the BOM can't get it right from one month to the next?

Why is the Australian Antarctic Division resupply ship Aurora Australis stuck in record sea ice on its way back to Hobart at least two weeks behind schedule that has thrown their seasonal program into disarray? What forecasts of sea ice do they base their planning on? Shouldn't John Connor and Will Steffen as members of Climate authorities be raising a ruckus about this on the media like they did after the Blue Mountain bush fire? Is the crew and passengers of Aurora Australia putting their lives at risk on bad forecasts as well as wasting tax payers money?

And what exactly is causing this year's record Antarctic sea ice? Yes I know it is a continent, but why is sea ice going up instead of down? Cold water currents? Melting fresh water from the Antarctic continent? The Ozone Hole? A change in global wind patterns? Increased precipitation? All of the above?

Or like Tim Flannery's doom predictions or the BOM's seasonal outlooks, they haven't really got a blooming clue? And why are they so convinced CO2 is the culprit for Arctic ice melt but there is every theory under the sun for Antarctic sea ice increase except that the affect of CO2 seems to be insignificant?

Alicej:

26 Nov 2013 10:18:43am

Original

Can we call ourselves a democracy when what has been agreed to by parliament may be undone within a few weeks.?

The incumbent party is a worry, with just a flick of the pen (sometimes not even that,) secrecy and information block outs, backpedalling on previous agreements, and redistribution on monies promised for better education, makes one wonder whether the whole premise is a covert class war , Abbott's a worry.

Trekka:

26 Nov 2013 10:55:34am

I've yet to hear what possible public or national interest was served by the ABC being party to the publishing of this illegally gained intelligence information other than to poison the relationship between the Australian and Indonesian governments. ?To what purpose? ?Did it expose anything of any value at all? ?Will it lead to any change that will positively affect any Australian citizen??

Given the complete lack of any positive purpose, even in the sense of improving government behavior, one can only come to the conclusion that there was indeed some malevolent intent motivating the move, and given the ABC's partisan behavior in recent times, especially since the election of the new government, and especially relating to the asylum seeker issue, this conclusion has a compelling logic to it. ?

The ABC now needs to explain exactly what motivated it in treacherously joining with the Guardian in publishing this highly damaging but ultimately useless, and possibly illegal, stuff. It could have, after all, and should have, left it to the Guardian to sink or swim on its own and reported on that if necessary

Reinhard:

26 Nov 2013 11:52:48am

The Abbott govt is following the coalition's long standing 'three wise monkeys" doctrine, they cover their eyes, ears and mouths so they can then dismiss any contrary evidence from experts, on everything from climate change and the carbon tax to the economy. John Howard has recently chosen to associate himself with a fringe denial group, Lord Lawson's Global Warming Policy Foundation and that can only mean one thing , the Coalition intends to escalate their anti-science campaign to discredit the legitimate science of AGW. The Global Warming Policy Foundation is the UK's version of the Heartland Institute, no more than a well funded front for the fossil fuel lobby, using highly paid and highly discredited pseudo-scientists like Bob Carter to spout disinformation and deliberate misinterpretation of scientific fact. They have been caught numerous times deliberately misinterpreting climate data to suit their agenda, and their latest tactic was a media blitz aimed at misquoting and discrediting the findings in the IPCC's AR5 draft report, such as: "The rate of atmospheric warming over the past 15 years (1998-2012) is +0.05 [-0.05 to +0.15] degrees C per decade. This period begins with a strong El Nino, and is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951-2012) of +0.12 [+0.08 to +0.14] degrees C per decade. Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence). It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (0-700m) warmed from 1971 to 2010."[Source: AR5 WG1 Summary for Policy Makers (approved 27 Sep 2013)]

wombat:

26 Nov 2013 12:49:53pm

The problem with you denialists is that you assume that scientists are like business people - only interested in getting more wealthy, no matter what they do - i.e. irrevocably corrupt. I'll bet you've never met a scientist, Rusty. I've met plenty of business people - most of them are decent enough people. However, they think that they are the kings of the universe - when most business people succeed either through good luck or inherited wealth - almost every business person is hard working, so that doesn't determine success or failure. Also most businesses make or sell stuff that people don't need or aren't any good. Yet they think that they are the only people in the world doing anything useful. neo-liberalism is not a philosophy is just a marketing activity to get average Jo to act against his or her best interests.

jazz:

26 Nov 2013 2:32:18pm

It is irrefutable that global warming is one of the most serious problems to get a handle as soon as possible.I believe with the Austrailia's negotiation, people will be put more interests our demaged environemt, which make them think of soulution.

billie:

26 Nov 2013 3:15:15pm

I have never understood people who can't plan for the future, in fact I was taught to pity them.

I am appalled by the shortsighted bloody mindedness of people who refuse to listen to climate scientists when they say that global warming is caused by human activity and we must reduce carbon emissions to reduce the level of damage done by global warming.

But then I don't own a coal mine and I generate solar electricity on my roof.

Latest Episode

Hot Topic

The Prime Minister has announced Australia will be expanding its military role in Iraq for up to two years. Tony Abbott has signed off on sending 300 Australian soldiers for a joint mission with New Zealand.

It's a fundamental human yearning to be a part of something bigger than one's self, and maybe that's what drove my mate Ash to die, far from home, in a bloody foreign war against Islamic State, writes C August Elliott.